2010 (2) TMI 276 - HC - Income Tax

Search and Seizure- A petition was filed to quash releasing of gold jewellery weighing 1046 gms. to unauthorized persons and to give the compensation to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner was that in the search conducted on Nov. 1979 u/s 132 of the Act certain jewellery was seized from one L. The petitioner claimed to be the wife of the adopted son of L. Held that- the jewellery was not available with the Revenue but had been sold for recovery of dues and though the petitioner relied on the order of assessment passed in the year 1999 and also claimed that it was the duty of the Revenue to return the jewellary within 120 days thereafter the petitioner never raised such claim for the period about 10 year. Thus the appeal was dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition to quash releasing of gold jewellery to unauthorized persons and seek compensation.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, claiming to be the wife of the adopted son of the individual from whom jewellery was seized, sought to quash the release of gold jewellery weighing 1046 gms. to unauthorized persons and requested compensation. The jewellery was seized during an Income-tax Act search in 1979, with part of it held to belong to the petitioner after assessment in 1999. However, the jewellery in question was given to unauthorized persons in 2000, leading to the petition filed in 2009. Reference was made to a previous court order related to the petitioner's husband's case.

2. The Revenue contested the petition, arguing it was time-barred and citing a similar case dismissed by the court previously. They mentioned pending litigation on the succession of the individual from whom the jewellery was seized. The Revenue stated that the seized gold was sold to recover dues and was no longer available. Private respondents who purchased the jewellery also supported this stand.

3. After hearing both parties, the court noted the petitioner's reliance on a court order from 2008, which was found to be inapplicable as the jewellery in question had not been released or sold in that case. The court highlighted that the jewellery had been sold for dues recovery, and the petitioner had not raised any claim for about 10 years despite the duty of the Revenue to return the jewellery within 120 days after assessment. The court concluded that the case was covered by a previous court order from 2006, dismissing a similar writ petition filed by the petitioner's sister-in-law, and subsequently dismissed the current petition.