2015 (6) TMI 215

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the month of December 2014 and January 2015 in their family. This notwithstanding, the petitioners undertaking to secure the revenue by furnishing an unconditional bank guarantee for the value of the jewellery (higher of the value as between seizure and on date). 3. The facts which are relevant for disposal of the present petition are that petitioner No.1 is a larger HUF (larger HUF), petitioner No.2 is a smaller HUF (smaller HUF ) and petitioner No.3 is an individual (Individual).The Individual also happens to be the Karta of both the larger and smaller HUFs. 4. In July 2005, the revenue carried out a search at the premises of Individual and jewellery valued at Rs. 40.90 Lacs was seized. The seized jewellery continues to be in the cust....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Individual. Thereafter on 1 September 2014, the Assessing Officer passed another order in respect of Individual and recorded that the seized jewellery would be released to the Individual only in case the Individual accepts the ownership of the jewellery unconditionally and a cash equivalent to the current market value of the seized jewellery is paid to the revenue. 8. Being aggrieved, the petitioners on 17 September 2014 made further applications to the Commissioner of Income Tax seeking release of the jewellery seized in 2005 and 2013. The Commissioner of Income Tax by two orders dated 17 October 2014 rejected the applications for release of the seized jewellery. This on the ground that the seized jewellery, according to the revenue,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not admitting to be the owner. Thus the seized jewellery cannot be released to him. In any case, in the alternative he submits that the seized jewellery be released only for a period of three months for the purpose of marriage and thereafter be deposited with the revenue. 11. We notice that the petitioners had applied for release of the seized jewellery on furnishing of appropriate bank guarantee to secure the jewellery as far back on 11 March 2014. We are informed that the marriage of daughter of the Individual is scheduled on 15 December 2014. The petitioners' applications for release of the seized jewellery find support in Circular/Instruction dated 21 January 2009. Clause 3(d) of the Circular/Instruction dated 21 January 2009, in p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Although the Circular/Instruction requires the assessee to accept the ownership of the seized jewellery unconditionally before it can be released, in the peculiar facts of this case, the ownership of the seized jewellery is a matter of dispute. In the peculiar facts of this case, the seized jewellery admittedly belongs to one of the three petitioners, i.e., larger HUF, smaller HUF or the Individual. In any case according to the revenue, the seized jewellery belongs to the individual. Therefore, if the individual gives a bank guarantee of a Nationalised Bank for the value of the seized jewellery (the petitioners state that they are willing to offer bank guarantee on the higher of two valuation, i.e., the date of seizure and as on today). Mr.....