9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 930X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed in terms of these directions. - W. P. (C) 7620/2011 - - - Dated:- 21-10-2016 - S. Ravindra Bhat And Deepa Sharma, JJ. For the Petitioner : Sh. N.P. Sahni, Advocate For the Respondent : Sh. Ashok. K. Manchanda, Sr. Standing Counsel ORDER Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat 1. The writ petitioner in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution is aggrieved by the refusal - by the respondents i.e. the income tax authorities -to release the jewellery - approximately 319. 98 g, seized by them in the course of search proceedings under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act ). 2. On 10th August, 2000, the income tax authorities conducted search and seizure proceedings in respect of the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approached the Finance Minister on 30th January, 2008 requesting him to intercede in the matter. Once again, on 16th July, 2008, a request was made to the concerned Income Tax Officer for the release of jewellery. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's husband had approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)- aggrieved by the order of the AO. The ITAT set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to conclude the proceedings de novo. 4. On 31st December, 2009, the AO once again made an order whereby the petitioner's husband was held liable for tax evasion in respect of undisclosed income to the extent of ₹ 1.79 crores and the corresponding tax effect was made, through a demand. All the while the petitioner continued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner has been not subjected to any assessment on the ground that she had concealed the valuation of jewellery or that the amounts were not her property. 6. The respondents counter affidavit - and the argument of their counsel, Shri. Manchanda, is that even though the first assessment order had virtually accepted the petitioner's contention that the property belonged to her, nevertheless the fact remains that there is nothing to substantiate her claim for ownership. It is contended next that the findings in the first assessment cannot be relied upon because they were set aside and the AO was directed to conduct proceedings de novo. In the circumstances in the absence of a positive finding either with respect to ownership or as to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssues in his favour). The ITAT's decision to proceed de novo, nevertheless strengthened the respondents' obduracy and hardened their resolve not to release the jewellery. The de novo order did not result in any addition on that aspect at all; still the respondents cling to another ingenious argument- that till the petitioners' husband's tax demands are satisfied, they can detain the jewellery. 9. The respondents' rationale or justification is entirely insubstantial. The petitioner says that she was married in mid 1960s and her daughters were born in 1967- she was 70 when these proceedings were started. The respondents do not deny this. In the circumstances, the further explanation that the jewellery belonged to her an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treat the other as unexplained . Matter would have been different if the quantum and value of the jewellery found was substantial. 4. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the findings of the Tribunal are totally perverse and far from the realities of life. In the peculiar facts of this case we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue thereby deleting the aforesaid addition of ₹ 3,87,364/-. 10. The petitioner's explanation is justified and reasonable. Like in Ashok Chadha (supra), her contention that the gold jewellery was acquired through gifts made by relatives and other family members over a long period of time, is in keeping with prevailing customs and habits. The obdurate refusal of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
