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 Orders Release of Seized Assets in Tax Case</h1> <h3>Smt. Bhawna Lodha Versus Director General of Income Tax and others</h3> Smt. Bhawna Lodha Versus Director General of Income Tax and others - [2013] 354 ITR 134 Issues:1. Release of seized gold ornaments and jewellery2. Interpretation of Circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes3. Justification for demanding bank guaranteeAnalysis:Issue 1: Release of seized gold ornaments and jewelleryThe petitioner sought the quashing of a communication dated 16/4/2012 and requested the release of 1004.8 grams of gold ornaments seized during a search conducted on 18/1/2007. The petitioner had paid all outstanding demands raised by the Assessing Authority, including tax and penalty. Despite this, the gold ornaments and jewellery were not released by the Income-tax Department. The petitioner argued that the Circular dated 21.01.2009 does not prohibit the release of seized assets if all demands have been paid. The respondent authorities insisted on a bank guarantee for the value of the jewellery. The court noted that there was no existing demand against the petitioner, and the continued detention of the assets without valid reason was unjustified. The court ordered the immediate release of the gold ornaments and jewellery to the petitioner.Issue 2: Interpretation of Circular issued by Central Board of Direct TaxesThe Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes provided guidelines for the release of seized assets other than cash. It outlined conditions under which seized assets should be released, including the satisfaction of outstanding demands and approval from tax authorities. The petitioner argued that since all demands had been paid, the jewellery should be released without the need for a bank guarantee. The court agreed that the detention of assets without any outstanding demand was unjustified, as per the Circular's provisions.Issue 3: Justification for demanding bank guaranteeThe respondents demanded a bank guarantee for the full value of the seized jewellery, citing the pending appeal on a penalty amount. The petitioner contended that since all demands had been paid, there was no justification for the bank guarantee. The court agreed, stating that with no outstanding demand against the petitioner, the demand for a bank guarantee was not justified. The court ordered the immediate release of the jewellery to the petitioner, emphasizing that the continued detention without valid reason was unwarranted.In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the release of the gold ornaments and jewellery to the petitioner. The court highlighted that the detention and retention of the assets by the Income-tax Department without a valid reason were unjustified, especially considering the absence of any outstanding demand against the petitioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
