2016 (8) TMI 648 - HC - Income Tax

Release of jewellery to the petitioner seized during the course of search - Held that - As could be seen from the statement given by the 4th respondent on 25.05.1996 in reply to question no.30, the 4th respondent would state that out of 1,241 grams of jewels, 600 grams belongs to his wife and the remaining belongs to his sister and mother (petitioner) and it does not include the 20 grams of gold jewellery owned by his sister, apart from the 400 gms of jewellery held by his wife. The other son of the petitioner, Thangamani in his statement dated 25.09.1996 among other things while replying to question no.6 has stated that his jewellery weighing 80 grams has been kept in safe custody in the bank locker standing in the name of the petitioner. Thus this Court is unable to consider granting the relief to the petitioner in this Writ Petition nor can this Court out rightly draw a presumption as put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has to necessarily avail the remedies which are available to her under the provisions of the Act, more so in the light of the statements given by her kith and kin namely, sons, daughter and daughter-in-law. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to issue a Writ of Mandamus as sought for. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner s representation dated 09.12.2013 along with the letter given by the 4th respondent dated 26.02.2014 and further the representation of the petitioner dated 04.08.2015 and appropriate orders shall be passed on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeking direction to release seized jewellery; Validity of direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Disputed ownership of jewellery; Tax arrears of family members; Interpretation of Income Tax Act provisions.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking the release of jewellery seized during a search in 1996. The petitioner claimed ownership based on the panchanama listing the jewellery and the absence of tax arrears. However, the 4th respondent, the petitioner's son, signed the inventory, and conflicting statements were made regarding ownership. The Department added the jewellery value to the 4th respondent's income, later overturned by ITAT. The respondents argued that ownership was explained, and tax arrears of family members totaled ?1,01,84,550. The petitioner relied on Income Tax Act provisions to claim ownership and requested the return of jewellery.

The Court noted conflicting statements by family members regarding jewellery ownership, making it unable to grant relief or presume ownership. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition but directed the 1st respondent to review the petitioner's representations and pass orders within six weeks. The Court emphasized the need for the petitioner to pursue remedies under the Act due to conflicting statements by family members. No costs were awarded in the judgment.