9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2000, the income tax authorities conducted search and seizure proceedings in respect of the petitioner's husband's premises and seized several documents and other materials. On 21st March 2001 a consequential action by way of search of a locker in the Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) was conducted. The bank locker contained jewellery. That jewellery is the subject matter of these proceedings. On 18th June, 2001, the petitioner's husband requested income tax authorities to release the jewellery and stated that it belonged to his wife, i.e. the petitioner. On 24th March, 2002 and 4th April, 2002, the petitioner requested the income tax authorities for release of the jewellery stating that it belonged to her as it was her stridhan. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding tax effect was made, through a demand. All the while the petitioner continued to request the income tax authorities for release of her jewellery. Finding the respondents' approach unrelenting she has approached the court. 5. It is argued by Mr. N.P. Sahni, learned counsel for the petitioner that the retention of her jewellery is contrary to law. Learned counsel points out that the first assessment order categorically accepted her submission - that the jewellery belonged to her and that she had right to that moveable property. In fact it was not the income tax department which was aggrieved by the order but rather the Petitioner's husband. This led to his approaching the tribunal which set aside the assessment order for the block ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the absence of a positive finding either with respect to ownership or as to the facts that the jewellery was not concealed as undisclosed income or property of her husband, till the tax demands were satisfied, the jewellery could be validly detained. 7. The facts are undisputed, as is evident from the above factual discussion. The search of the petitioner's husband's premises and property led to a follow-up search in Ranchi; his bank locker with the IOB too was searched. This contained the jewellery in question. Concededly, the jewellery is 398 gms and of gold. The assessee relies on circulars of 1985 and 1994 to say that when such small quantities are recovered, no follow-up action is necessary and that in any case, the jewellery is h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances, the further explanation that the jewellery belonged to her and represented accumulation of gifts received from family members over a period of time, and also acquired during the subsistence of her marriage is reasonable and logical. The nature of ownership of a woman's Stridhan is explained by the Supreme Court in its decision Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar 1985 (2) SCC 70 in the following terms: "a Hindu married woman is the absolute owner of her Streedhan property and can deal with it in any manner she likes and, even if it is placed in the custody of her husband or her in-laws they would be deemed to be trustees and bound to return the same if and when demanded by her". In Ashok Chaddha v Income Tax Officer [2012] 20 ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
