TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (1) TMI 65
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the Canara Bank, Dalhousie Road, Pathankot, was searched on September 17, 1996, and a panchnama was prepared, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure P 1. The entire jewellery of the value of Rs. 8,29,936 contained in the said locker was seized. Another locker of the petitioner, i.e., locker No. 72 with the State Bank of Patiala, Chakki Bank, Pathankot, was also searched on September 24, 1996, and a panchnama was prepared, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure P 4. The entire jewellery of the value of Rs. 9,76,010 found in the said locker was also seized. The assessment for the block period under section 158BC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), was completed on September 29,1997, and the total undisclosed inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the jewellery, which had been seized from his lockers. Receiving no response, another application dated September 4, 2002, with the same prayer was moved. When no action was taken on the second application also, the petitioner filed another letter dated March 24, 2003, before respondent No.2 which also evoked no response. The petitioner also claims to have met the respondents personally for release of the jewellery but without any success. Having no other alternative, the petitioner has approached this court by way of the present writ petition. On notice, a written statement on behalf of the respondents has been filed in which it has been stated that the Department has not accepted the order of the Tribunal and had filed an appeal before t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R. Malhotra v. Addl. Sessions Judge, AIR 1976 SC 219, to contend that the Revenue could not retain the assets on the plea that some demand was likely to be created in future. When this matter had come up for hearing before us on December 15, 2003, counsel for the Revenue had resisted the prayer of release of jewellery mainly on the ground that a demand of Rs. 6,21,279 was pending against the late Shri Suresh Kumar Kohli, the father of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner had pointed out that the release of assets seized from the petitioner could not be denied on this ground. However, to put an end to this litigation, he had offered to furnish security to the extent of Rs. 6,21,279. Thereupon, counsel for the Revenue had sought an adj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-tax Act, 1974 (45 of 1974), and the amount of the liability determined on completion of the assessment under section 153A and the assessment of the year relevant to the previous year in which search is initiated or requisition is made, or the amount of liability determined on completion of the assessment under Chapter XIV-B for the block period, as the case may be, (including any penalty levied or interest payable in connection with such assessment) and in respect of which such person is in default or is deemed to be in default, may be recovered out of such assets: Provided that where the person concerned makes an application to the Assessing Officer within thirty days from the end of the month in which the asset was seized, for release o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....26 and the Assessing Officer or, as the case may be, the Tax Recovery Officer may recover the amount of such liabilities by the sale of such assets and such sale shall be effected in the manner laid down in the Third Schedule. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall preclude the recovery of the amount of liabilities aforesaid by any other mode laid down in this Act. (3) Any assets or proceeds thereof which remain after the liabilities referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (1) are discharged shall be forthwith made over or paid to the persons from whose custody the assets were seized (4) (a) The Central Government shall pay simple interest at the rate of eight per cent. per annum on the amount by which the aggregate amount of m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ub-section (1) of section 132B of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the jewellery was recovered and seized from the custody of the petitioner. There is, thus, no manner of doubt that the respondents are liable to make over the jewellery to the petitioner in terms of the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 132B of the Act. No provision of law has been brought to our notice under which the respondents can retain possession of the seized jewellery during the pendency of appeal filed by the Revenue before the High Court. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 524 has no application in the present case. The point at issue in the said judgment was in respect of....