TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses jeweler's petition for seized assets adjustment against tax, stresses finality, allows relief post-assessment.</h1> <h3>MS. SASEENDRA JEWELLERY, Versus ASST. COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, CALICUT.</h3> MS. SASEENDRA JEWELLERY, Versus ASST. COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, CALICUT. - TMI Issues:1. Adjustment of seized assets against amounts due on completion of assessment for the Block Period.2. Refusal to sell part of seized assets for adjustment of amounts due.3. Release of one kilogram of gold to the petitioner.4. Retention of balance gold by the Department.5. Insufficiency of the remaining gold to cover the probable demand.6. Dismissal of the writ petition with the option to seek appropriate orders after finality of assessment proceedings.Analysis:1. The petitioner, a jeweler, had gold and silver ornaments seized during an Income Tax Act search in 2000. The block assessment resulted in a tax demand of Rs.52,80,294, treating certain gold and silver items as unexplained stock. The Appellate Commissioner reduced the undisclosed income value to Rs.62,56,273, remanding a portion of gold purchase for further assessment.2. The Department appealed the remand order, leading to the Tribunal directing reconsideration by the Commissioner (Appeals). Meanwhile, the petitioner sought adjustment of seized assets against the due amounts, citing financial constraints. The Department released one kilogram of gold to the petitioner but retained the rest to cover the probable demand exceeding Rs.1.53 crores.3. The Department argued that the remaining 5094 grams of gold, valued at Rs.76,41,000, was insufficient to meet the potential liability. As the assessment proceedings were ongoing, the court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to seek appropriate relief once the assessment process concluded, emphasizing the need for finality in the decision-making process.
TaxTMI 