2013 (9) TMI 973 - HC - Income Tax

Search conducted u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act - Ownership of jewelry in dispute seizure of Stridhan - Held that - The petitioner No.2 is permitted to take the jewelleries seized on 20.6.2012 from the premises of Petitioner No.1, on supurdgi on furnishing bank guarantee to the amount of the value of the jewelleries. Petitioner No.2 shall also file an undertaking before the respondents that till the decision of the assessment proceedings, petitioner No.2 shall not sell or transfer the jewelleries without seeking prior permission of the respondents

Summary

Issues:
1. Ownership dispute over seized jewelleries
2. Entitlement of petitioner No.2 to seized jewelleries
3. Requirement of bank guarantee for handing over jewelleries
4. Directions for the disposal of the matter

Ownership Dispute Over Seized Jewelleries:
The judgment revolves around a case where certain jewelleries were seized from the premises of different petitioners. It is highlighted that the jewelleries seized from the premises of petitioner No.1 were claimed by petitioner No.2 as her own. The respondents initially raised an objection to handing over the jewelleries to petitioner No.2 due to an ownership dispute. However, it was eventually decided that petitioner No.2 could take possession of the jewelleries seized from petitioner No.1 on Supurdgi by furnishing a bank guarantee equal to the value of the jewelleries. This decision was made considering the peculiar facts of the case and the claim made by petitioner No.2 regarding the ownership of the jewelleries.

Entitlement of Petitioner No.2 to Seized Jewelleries:
The circular of the CBDT was referred to in the judgment to establish the entitlement of petitioner No.2 to the jewelleries seized on a particular date. It was mentioned that as per the circular, petitioner No.2 was entitled to the jewelleries up to a specified weight without the necessity of furnishing a bank guarantee. The judgment acknowledged this entitlement and allowed petitioner No.2 to take possession of the jewelleries on Supurdgi up to the specified weight without the requirement of a bank guarantee.

Requirement of Bank Guarantee for Handing Over Jewelleries:
The respondents initially insisted on the furnishing of a bank guarantee equal to the value of the jewelleries for handing them over to petitioner No.2. However, considering the circumstances and the claim made by petitioner No.2, it was decided that a bank guarantee would be required only for jewelleries exceeding a certain weight. For jewelleries within the specified weight limit, petitioner No.2 was permitted to take possession without the need for a bank guarantee, subject to filing an undertaking not to sell or transfer the jewelleries without prior permission.

Directions for the Disposal of the Matter:
In conclusion, the judgment provided specific directions for the disposal of the matter. It was ordered that petitioner No.2 could take possession of the jewelleries seized from petitioner No.1 on Supurdgi by furnishing a bank guarantee for the value of the jewelleries. Additionally, petitioner No.2 was required to submit an undertaking to the respondents regarding the non-sale or transfer of the jewelleries without prior permission. The judgment also allowed for the consideration of a request for the handover of a mobile phone belonging to petitioner No.2, subject to an application being made to the respondents for the same.