Court orders Department to review seized gold jewelry applications, stresses accurate facts, and sets timeline for release.

The court allowed the review application and directed the Department to consider the petitioner's applications for the release of seized gold jewelry. The court emphasized the importance of presenting accurate facts and noted errors in the assessment order timeline. The Department was instructed to retain jewelry equivalent to the tax liability and release the remainder within four weeks. The writ petition was disposed of without costs awarded, highlighting the need for transparency and adherence to legal procedures in such matters.

---

---

Issues:
Release of seized gold jewelry during pending assessment.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought the release of gold jewelry seized during a search. However, as per Section 132B(i) of the Income Tax Act, assets seized cannot be released if any assessment was pending at the relevant time. An error was found in the case where the assessment order for the year 2013-14 was completed before the writ petition order, but this fact was not brought to the court's attention. The court noted that both parties failed to present accurate facts, causing prejudice to the Revenue's interest.

The court acknowledged that the tax liability for the petitioner was determined in the assessment order passed in 2018, and the tax liability was not brought to its notice during the previous order. The respondent argued that retaining jewelry worth over Rs. 8 crores when the tax liability was around Rs. 1,04,00,000 was unnecessary, especially when the jewelry was in use by family members. The court emphasized the importance of presenting correct facts and decided to review the previous order due to the error apparent on record.

The court directed the Department to consider the petitioner's applications for jewelry release and retain jewelry equal to the tax liability, releasing the rest following legal procedures. The Department was instructed to complete this process within four weeks. Consequently, the review application was allowed, the writ petition was disposed of, and no costs were awarded.

---