9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 867X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per the seizure Mahazar, the jewellery seized from the writ petitioner's premises is valued more than ₹ 8 crores. Thus, the respondent-Department is directed to consider the applications filed by the writ petitioner on 13.11.2017 and on 28.11.2017 for release of jewellery. While considering such applications, the respondent- Department is directed to retain the jewellery worth equal to the tax liability along with the interest and consider releasing of the remaining jewellery by following the procedures as contemplated under law. The said exercise is directed to be done as expeditiously as possible and preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - Review Application No.100 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the assessment under Chapter XIV-B for the block period, as the case may be (including any penalty levied or interest payable in connection with such assessment or reassessment) and in respect of which he is in default or is deemed to be in default may be recovered out of such assets. 5. In view of the above provisions, the goods seized cannot be released, if any assessment was pending during the relevant point of time. 6. The error apparent on record in the present case is that, at the time of passing the order dated 04.11.2019, it was submitted that the assessment proceedings were pending with regard to the assessment year 2013 14. However, the assessment order was completed under Section 143 (3) read with Section 254 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot considered by this Court is to be construed as an error apparent on record. 9. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner/revenue reiterated that the respondents produced the communication dated 30.10.2019 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, to the Standing Counsel informing that the petitioner has settled his tax dues of ₹ 1,46,440/- for the Assessment Year 2009-10 vide challan dated 25.07.2018. After saying so, the learned counsel submitted that even though, as on date, there is no tax due from the petitioner, since the assessment proceedings is pending for the Assessment Year 2013-14, the assets retained by the revenue need not be returned to the assessee under Section 132B of the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than a sum of ₹ 8 Crores. It is contended that the department has no right to retain such a large quantity of the property belongs to the petitioner more specifically when the jewels are in the usage by family members. 13. Hence, it is the failure on the part of the respective parties to the lis in placing the correct facts before this Court. If the order already passed on 04.11.2019 is allowed to be executed then prejudice would be caused to the interest of the Revenue. Once an error apparent is brought to the notice of this Court at the instance of the parties, and further such a fact is important for the purpose of determining the issues, then it is necessary to review the order passed on 04.11.2019 in W.P.No.23989 of 2018. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
