2011 (1) TMI 43

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... No. 7336/2008 As we have restored the matter, we have taken up the writ petition for hearing.   2. Heard Mr. Piyush Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned counsel for the Revenue Department. 3. On 19th August, 1993, the Income Tax Department conducted search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act for short) at the residential premises of Ms. Madhu Lalwani, the petitioner and seized cash and jewellery aggregating to Rs.2,07,887/-. 4. On 16th December, 1993, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax passed an order under Section 132(5) of the Act treating jewellery worth Rs.1,81,614/- as prima facie unexplained and taxable in the financial year ending 31st....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Petitioner accordingly approached Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (Central)-III vide her application dated 22-23rd April, 2008 for return of jewellery. She also made a prayer for refund of Rs. 91,306/- which was deposited towards taxes vide two challans after the assessment order making addition of Rs. 1,81,614/- was passed. The request has been rejected and denied vide order dated 21-23rd May, 2008, which reads as under:- "2. Your request for release of Jewellery made in letter dated 14.01.2008 has been considered. After hearing your Authorized Representative and considering his letters dated 22nd April 2008 filed on 23.04.2008 and 23rd April, 2008 filed on 28.04.2008 your request for release of jewellery, seized during search & seizu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wellery seized was treated as jewellery belonging to a third person. On the other hand, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had reduced the addition on account of unexplained jewellery/investment to Rs.56,614/- but the Tribunal deleted the entire addition on the ground that the jewellery belongs to the petitioner, though it may have been gifted to her on various occasions. The Tribunal has relied upon the affidavit of the petitioner‟s brother that the jewellery was given at the time of marriage by the mother of the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that in case jewellery is returned to the petitioner, family members of the petitioner may make a claim on the said jewellery. Learned counsel for the petiti....