9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... residence, wherein the petitioners and others also resided or from the bank lockers of the two petitioners - HELD THAT:- We do not find this to be a reasonable justification for not even responding to the application dated 26.04.2019 made by one of the family members, Sh.Lalit Kumar Challani. Even if, according to the respondents, the application could not be made by Sh.Lalit Kumar Challani and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod of four weeks from the date the application is made. - W.P.(C) 714/2020 - - - Dated:- 10-2-2020 - MR. VIPIN SANGHI AND MR. SANJEEV NARULA JJ. Petitioners Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kanishka Prasad, Advocate. Respondents Through: Mr. Deepak Anand, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Vipul Agarwal, Advocate. O R D E R C.M. No.2042/2020 (exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioners was also seized. An application under Section 132B of the Income Tax Act dated 26.04.2019 was made by Sh.Lalit Kumar Challani for release of the said jewellery. A perusal of this application shows that it was made in representative capacity on behalf of all the family members, including the petitioners herein. The respondents conveniently chose not to respond to the same which has led t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to send the response to the said application. The respondents have however, allowed time to pass by their own omission. Thus, it is not correct for the respondents to turn around and say that the application for release of the jewellery was not made within time. 8. In view of the stand taken by the respondents, we permit the petitioners to move the application for release of jewellery seized d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
