TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Income Tax Department's objection under Section 132A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could justify refusal of interim custody of stolen property seized in a criminal case under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (ii) Whether the applicant had shown sufficient ownership to warrant release of the seized articles.
Issue (i): Whether the Income Tax Department's objection under Section 132A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could justify refusal of interim custody of stolen property seized in a criminal case under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Analysis: The power under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned with interim custody of property seized in a criminal case and requires the Court to decide who is best entitled to retain possession pending further proceedings. A requisition or objection raised by the Income Tax Department does not, by itself, displace that enquiry. Where the property is alleged to be stolen and has been recovered in the criminal investigation, the tax authorities may pursue their remedies under the tax law in appropriate proceedings, but they cannot prevent the criminal court from deciding custody merely on the basis of a Section 132A(1) objection.
Conclusion: The objection under Section 132A(1) could not, by itself, justify refusal of interim custody under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Issue (ii): Whether the applicant had shown sufficient ownership to warrant release of the seized articles.
Analysis: The applicant had asserted ownership over the seized cash and gold and had placed documents on record in support of that claim, including a certificate issued by the Tahsildar and other title-related material. The trial court was required to evaluate that evidence and determine whether the applicant had established a sufficient claim to custody. Rejection of the application solely on the Income Tax Department's objection, without properly examining the ownership material, was not a lawful exercise of discretion.
Conclusion: The applicant's claim to ownership required consideration on merits, and the order rejecting custody was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the revision was allowed, with a direction to release the seized articles to the applicant upon satisfaction of the documents evidencing ownership.
Ratio Decidendi: In a criminal proceeding for custody of seized property, the court must decide interim possession on the basis of the claimant's ownership and entitlement, and a tax department objection under Section 132A(1) does not automatically bar release under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
TaxTMI 
