TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 126
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....awarded to the petitioner and same may be directed to be recovered personally from the erring officers. (iv) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed." 2. A search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was Conducted at the residential house of the petitioner on 18.01.2007 and inter-alia, 1004.8 grams gold jewellery was seized during the course of said search. After search, the block assessment was completed for the years 2001-02 to 2006-07 by the Assessing Authority vide assessment order dated 31.10.2008; and certain demands of tax and penalty was raised against the petitioner. In the appeals filed by the petitioner-assessee, the assessee got certain relief/s in the additions made in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... behalf of the Income-tax Department and in reply to Para/s 13 to 15 of the writ petition, the respondents' reply is as under: "13-15. That in reply to the averments made in para nos. 13 to 15 of the writ petition, it is respectfully reiterated that at present, penalty matters were pending with the answering respondents-department and hence, the seized jewellery could have been released only in accordance with the provisions and procedure provided under the relevant rules/circulars issued by the Government of India." 5. The respondents have also relied upon a Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Annex.8) dated 21st January, 2009, which is also quoted below: F. No.286/6/2008-IT (Inv.II) Government of India Ministr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the 'Act'). (b) Where the seized asset are not released under sub-section (1) of section 132B of the Act, such seized assets should be released within one month of passing of the last search and seizure assessment orders u/s 153A/153C, 143 (3), 148 or 158BC/158BD of the Act. The seized assets should be released only with the prior approval of Commissioner of Income Tax or Chief Commissioner of Income. However, no approval should be given for release of: (i) that part of the seized assets, the value of which is sufficient to adjust any existing liability and the amount of liability determined on completion of the search and seizure assessments; and also (ii)that part of seized assets which is sufficient to meet the expected liability on a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assets for an equivalent amount of cash. The replacement of seized assets with cash also makes it easier for the Department to adjust this cash against tax liability. Hence, it has been decided that the seized assets can also be released at any time, with the approval of the CIT or CCIT provided that: (i) the assessee accepts unconditionally the ownership of the seized assets and also the valuation of the seized assets, determined at the time of search and seizure operation; (ii)makes a request in writing requesting release of seized assets against equivalent amount of cash to be provided by him (iii)pays to the CIT a draft of an amount equal to the value of the seized assets and (iv) Agrees in writing that the amount may be deposited i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eserve to be released to the petitioner forthwith. He also submitted that pendency of one of the appeals before the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal against the penalty of Rs.72,300/-, which amount has also been paid by the petitioner even if rejected, does not cause any prejudice to the respondent- Department and on the other hand if such appeal is allowed in favour of assessee, the assessee would be entitled to the refund of penalty amount already deposited by her. 7. On factual matrix, there is no dispute from the side of the respondents, even in their reply and during the course of arguments also made by the learned counsel for the respondent- Revenue, Mr. K.K. Bissa. He further submitted that though the amount of tax and penalty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und of excess tax paid in pursuance of appeal effect given by respondent authority. So far as the jewellery seized at the time of search is concerned, the identification whereof was not disputed by the respondents authorities. Therefore, the detention and retention of such assets for prolonged period unnecessarily without any valid rhyme or reason, cannot be justified and that has made the petitioner to approach this Court by way of present writ petition. 10. Admittedly, there is no existing outstanding demand against the petitioner of tax, interest and penalty due now for the said period. Mere pendency of appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on the issue of penalty of Rs.72,300/-, which is already deposited by her, can only res....