Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (4) TMI 1491

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent State. 3. Having regard to the controversy involved which is in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. 4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this petition; (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order of seizure dated 14.06.2013 passed by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit- 3, u/s 132 in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing the course of search proceedings, statement of petitioner no.3 was also recorded under section 132(4) of the Act and he was asked to explain the source of jewellery found during the course of search proceedings. 7. The petitioner no.3 disclosed the source of jewellery and also disclosed the same in the return of income. Thereafter, assessment relating to the jewellery found during the course of search was carried out for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. Petitioner no.3 was specifically asked to explain the source of investment of jewellery of Rs. 34,96,478/- by issuance of notice dated 26.06.2016 under section 143(2) of the Act, to which the reply was filed by petitioner no.3 along with invoices. However, the Assessing Officer granted re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ever, during the pendency of this petition by order dated 12.11.2024 released the jewellery worth Rs. 18,63,470/- pertaining to petitioner no.1 out of the total jewellery of Rs. 34,96,478/- and balance jewellery worth Rs. 16,33,008/- is not released on the ground that there is outstanding demand of Rs. 3,36,21,170/- to be recovered from the petitioner no.3. 14. Learned advocate Mr. Vijay H. Patel for the petitioner submitted that appellate order dated 02.04.2019 has attained finality and the penalty levied upon petitioner no.3 is already paid and therefore, there is no outstanding demand to be paid by petitioner no.3 for Assessment Year 2014-2015. 15. It was therefore, submitted that partial retention of the jewellery by respondents on th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel for the respondents submitted that during the pendency of the petition, respondents have already released partial jewellery belonging to petitioner no.1 and as respondent authorities have retained the jewellery worth Rs. 16,33,008/- belonging to the petitioner no.2 who is wife of petitioner no.3 in view of outstanding demand of Rs. 3,36,21,170/- to be recovered from the petitioner no.3. 19. It was further submitted that as per Instruction bearing F.No.286/6/2008-IT (Inv.II) dated 21.01.2009, the respondent is entitled to adjust the seized assets against the existing liability of the assessee and accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.11.2024 passed by the respondents withholding the jewellery is just and pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ar that the respondent is required to release jewellery amounting to Rs. 16,33,008/- which is retained by order dated 12.11.2024 in absence of any outstanding liability to be paid by petitioner no.3 regarding Assessment Year 2014-2015 and therefore, such jewellery could not have been retained for recovery of any outstanding demand for any subsequent assessment years of the petitioner no.3. Retention of jewellery is therefore, without any authority and jurisdiction and is required to be released forthwith in favour of petitioner no.2. 23. The contentions raised on behalf of the respondents to retain the jewellery for recovery of outstanding tax dues of the petitioner no.3 is not tenable as the section 132B of the Act was amended to include .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates