1990 (7) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red by Dharampal Premchand Ltd., New Delhi. Mr. R. K. Singhal is the husband of the petitioner. In the judgment under appeal, it has been stated that Mr. R. K. Singhal owns a house No. E 117, Shastri Nagar, in Jaipur and the petitioner lived there with her husband at all material times. Mr. Singhal was a partner in Lata Sales Centre and is said to be a sub-dealer of Lata and Company. A search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter called "the Act") was conducted at the said, premises on 25/26th November, 1987. During the search, valuables and books of account were seized on November 26, 1987, and a notice under rule 112A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), read with sub-section (5) of sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed to the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner seeks to challenge the said order under article 136 of the Constitution of India. Mr. C. S. Agarwal, appearing for the petitioner, contended before us that if the search and seizure were illegal, then the evidence obtained by such search and seizure could be utilised in subsequent proceedings, but the items of jewellery and goods worth, according to him, over Rs. 2,97,000 were liable to be returned. We are, however, unable to entertain this appeal. In the instant case, the husband and the wife stayed in the same premises. The authorisation for search and seizure in respect of account books and goods which were seized was against the wife but in the proceedings under section 132(5) o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt, or, in other words, that injustice has been caused to any party. It is well-settled that the dispute as to the ownership of jewellery in question cannot be resolved in proceedings under article 226 of the Constitution in the manner sought for by the petitioner. Mr. Agarwal drew our attention to the decision in Assainar v. ITO [1975] 101 ITR 854, wherein the Kerala High Court has observed that the goods which were seized from the custody of a particular person should normally be returned to the person from whose custody the same had been seized. The aforesaid may be the position where there is no dispute as to the ownership of the goods in question. In such a situation, return of the goods to the person from whose custody the same are....