Court orders release of seized gold jewelry to petitioner in business dispute

The court ruled in favor of the writ applicant, directing the Revenue to release the seized gold jewelry weighing 524.500 grams. The petitioner, engaged in the business of Gold Jewelry, successfully argued that the seized jewelry was purchased from a specific entity and all transactions were properly recorded. As the Revenue did not challenge the appellate decision, the court found no basis for withholding the jewelry and granted relief to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
- Seizure of gold jewelry by the Revenue
- Addition of seized gold jewelry to the total income of the assessee
- Claim for release of the seized gold jewelry by the writ applicant

Seizure of Gold Jewelry by the Revenue:
The case involved a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the petitioner, an assessee engaged in the business of Gold Jewelry, sought the release of seized gold jewelry weighing 524.500 grams. The seizure was based on a search carried out in the case of another individual, leading to the petitioner being treated as the consignee of the gold jewelry dispatched by a consignor. The Revenue added the value of the seized jewelry to the total income of the petitioner, resulting in a dispute over the ownership and entitlement to the gold jewelry.

Addition of Seized Gold Jewelry to Total Income:
The assessment proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act led to the addition of the seized gold jewelry to the total income of the petitioner. The Revenue contended that the petitioner, as the receiving party, was not entitled to claim back the jewelry as the addition was made on a protective basis due to the seizure. The consignor, M/s. Parv Kundan and Diamonds Private Limited, faced a demand and penalty based on the seized jewelry, leading to a significant outstanding amount. However, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner, highlighting that the purchases were duly accounted for in the petitioner's books of accounts and the payments were made through banking channels. The CIT(A) concluded that the purchases could not be termed as unaccounted, thereby questioning the basis for the addition to the petitioner's income.

Claim for Release of Seized Gold Jewelry:
The judgment favored the writ applicant, accepting the findings of the CIT(A) that the petitioner had purchased the gold jewelry from M/s. Parv Kundan and Diamonds Private Limited, and the transactions were duly recorded and accounted for. As the Revenue did not challenge the CIT(A) order before the appellate Tribunal, the court directed the Revenue to release the seized gold jewelry weighing 524.500 grams in favor of the writ applicant. The court emphasized that in light of the conclusive findings regarding the purchase and accounting of the jewelry, the Revenue had no grounds to withhold the seized jewelry, thereby granting the relief sought by the petitioner in the writ application.

---