TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 759
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....961 (the Act). This was on the ground that the application for release of the seized gold was filed beyond a period of 30 days of seizure and also the claim of the petitioner that the seized gold is its stock in trade could not be substantiated. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the meantime i.e. before the next date of hearing the respondents may be directed to release the 5.25 Kgs., seized gold. 4. It is submitted that the first ground in the impugned communication dated 8 March 2013 (Exhibit U page 134), for refusing to release the 5.25 Kgs., of seized gold was that application for release was not made within 30 days from the end of the month in which the gold was seized is not correct. The gold was seized on 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Incometax, Vijaywada the petitioners had given the explanation regarding the nature and source of acquisition of 5.25 Kgs., of gold which was seized at Vijaywada. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the application under the proviso to Section 132B(1)(i) of the Act was required to be made to the Assessing Officer within 30 days and since the application in question was not made to the Assessing Officer within 30 days no fault may be found with the impugned communication dated 8 March 2013. It is further submitted that on merits also the Assessing Officer has observed that the books of accounts of M/s.Hemratna Jewellers were found to be not regularly written on day to day basis and the same were not produced when the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usiness. It is submitted that at the highest 30% of the seized gold plus Rs.6 lakhs of cash also seized on 20 April 2012 would be more than sufficient to take care of all the existing liabilities of the petitioners. This is for the reason that the value of gold has multiplied manifold during the period of its seizure i.e. from 20 April 2012 till date. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find considerable substance in the submissions that the petitioners had offered explanation to the Income Tax Department, Hyderabad on 3 May 2012 which was within 30 days from the date of seizure and, therefore, merely because the petitioners' application for release of the stock was not made to the Assessing Officer within 30 days from ....