2016 (10) TMI 930 - HC - Income Tax

Court orders release of seized jewellery, upholds petitioner's ownership rights.

Sushila Devi Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-XII

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner in a case challenging the income tax authorities' refusal to release seized jewellery under Section 132 of the ... Release of jewellery seized in the course of search proceedings under Section 132 - Held that:- The obdurate refusal of the respondents to release the jewellery constitutes deprivation of property without lawful authority and is contrary to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petition has to succeed; a direction is issued to the respondents to release the jewellery within two weeks and in that regard intimate to the petitioner the time and place where she (or her representative) can receive it. The respondents shall also pay costs quantified at ₹ 30,000/- to the petitioner, within four weeks, directly. The writ petition is allowed in terms of these directions. Issues:1. Refusal of income tax authorities to release seized jewellery under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Interpretation of ownership of jewellery seized during search and seizure proceedings.3. Legality of continued retention of jewellery by income tax authorities.4. Application of principles of Stridhan ownership in the case.5. Compliance with constitutional provisions regarding deprivation of property without lawful authority.Issue 1: Refusal to Release Seized JewelleryThe petitioner challenged the refusal of income tax authorities to release approximately 319.98 g of jewellery seized during search proceedings under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Despite repeated requests and claims by the petitioner and her husband regarding ownership, the authorities continued to withhold the jewellery.Issue 2: Interpretation of OwnershipThe petitioner asserted that the jewellery belonged to her as her stridhan, supported by her husband's request and the AO's initial acceptance of her ownership claim. However, the respondents argued that there was no substantiation for her ownership claim, especially after the first assessment order was set aside, leading to a fresh de novo proceeding.Issue 3: Legality of RetentionThe court noted the absence of any positive finding regarding ownership or concealment of the jewellery as undisclosed income. The respondents insisted on retaining the jewellery until tax demands were satisfied, despite no assessment against the petitioner for concealing the jewellery's valuation or ownership.Issue 4: Stridhan Ownership PrincipleCiting legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision on Stridhan ownership, the petitioner's explanation of the jewellery being accumulated gifts over time was deemed reasonable and logical. The court emphasized the absolute ownership rights of a Hindu married woman over her Stridhan property.Issue 5: Compliance with Constitutional ProvisionsThe court criticized the respondents' continued refusal to release the jewellery as deliberate harassment, highlighting that the petitioner's explanation for the jewellery's ownership was justifiable. The court directed the authorities to release the jewellery within two weeks, emphasizing that the retention without lawful authority constituted deprivation of property, contrary to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.In summary, the judgment addressed the refusal of income tax authorities to release seized jewellery, analyzed the interpretation of ownership, assessed the legality of continued retention, applied principles of Stridhan ownership, and ensured compliance with constitutional provisions regarding property deprivation. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the authorities to release the jewellery and pay costs, emphasizing the petitioner's justified explanation and the insubstantial rationale of the respondents.