https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782384 The dominant issue was whether the revenue could lawfully retain seized gold jewellery as "unaccounted assets" based on the panchnama and material gathered under the Income Tax Act. The HC held the panchnama was unreliable and contrary to the department's own record, since custody was taken earlier and valuation was already carried out, rendering the later panchnama's recitals incorrect and the affidavit explanation untenable; consequently, the panchnama and related order were quashed. The HC further found the seized jewellery was established to be the petitioner's stock-in-trade on documentary evidence, making continued retention unlawful; consequently, the revenue was directed to release the seized gold to the petitioner within two weeks. en-us Tue, 11 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Dec 2025 13:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782384 The dominant issue was whether the revenue could lawfully retain seized gold jewellery as "unaccounted assets" based on the panchnama and material gathered under the Income Tax Act. The HC held the panchnama was unreliable and contrary to the department's own record, since custody was taken earlier and valuation was already carried out, rendering the later panchnama's recitals incorrect and the affidavit explanation untenable; consequently, the panchnama and related order were quashed. The HC further found the seized jewellery was established to be the petitioner's stock-in-trade on documentary evidence, making continued retention unlawful; consequently, the revenue was directed to release the seized gold to the petitioner within two weeks. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782384