2017 (12) TMI 1527 - HC - Income Tax

Return of seized gold ornaments - assessee submitted that petitioner has also been crystallized therefore gold ornaments required to be returned to the petitioner - Criminal complaint under Section 276c(1) and 277 filed by department was discharged under Section 245 of Cr.PC. - Held that - when the learned Single Judge has granted the liberty to the petitioner to submit an application before the respondent Department and the respondent Department is directed to consider the same, no further direction is required to be issued in the present appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against oral order dated 04.10.2017 in Special Criminal Application No.1328 of 2009.
2. Constitutional right to property and return of seized gold ornaments.
3. Maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal.
4. Merits of the case regarding the seizure of gold ornaments under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an oral order dismissing the petition in Special Criminal Application No.1328 of 2009. The case involved the seizure of 1318 grams of gold ornaments by the Income Tax Department during a search operation in 1976. Various legal proceedings followed, including appeals and complaints, leading to the present appeal.

2. The appellant argued for the return of the gold ornaments, citing his constitutional right to property. It was contended that the seizure of declared wealth violated Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, depriving the petitioner of his property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The appellant relied on legal provisions and previous court decisions to support his claim for the return of the gold ornaments.

3. The respondent's counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal. It was argued that since the Single Judge exercised criminal jurisdiction in dismissing the petition, the appeal might not be maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The counsel contended that the lower courts had not erred in refusing to return the gold ornaments as they were not considered 'Muddamal.'

4. The court examined the merits of the case, particularly focusing on the seizure of the gold ornaments under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. The Single Judge had granted liberty to the petitioner to apply for the return of the ornaments under relevant provisions of the Act. The court found no error in the Single Judge's decision and dismissed the appeal, stating that no further direction was necessary. The court also noted that the decision from the High Court of Orissa, cited by the petitioner, did not support his case.

In conclusion, the court upheld the Single Judge's decision, finding no grounds for interference in the matter. The appeal was dismissed based on the reasoning provided in the judgment.