2007 (5) TMI 201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ome jewellery valued at Rs. 7,41,836 belonging to the petitioners were seized by the respondents. According to the petitioners the present value of the jewellery is about Rs. 16 lakhs. Be that as it may, block assessment proceedings were initiated against the petitioners and the admitted position is that whatever demands were raised in terms of the block assessment, the same were paid and all the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ain 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." Our attention has also been drawn to rule 112C of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 which reads as follows :- "Any assets or proceeds thereof which remain after the liabilities referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... so that it can retain the assets. Similarly in Naresh Kumar Kohli v. CIT [2004] 266 ITR 553 (P & H) ; [2004] 187 CTR 140, the Punjab and Haryana High Court took the view that jewellery that is recovered and seized cannot be retained in the absence of any existing liability or demand against the assessee. In that case, while allowing the writ petition and directing the release of the jewellery,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elease the jewellery are hardly relevant. If the petitioners have discharged their liability, which is admittedly so, there is no reason to retain their jewellery on any of these two grounds. There is admittedly no stay granted by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 260A of the Act. Consequently, the respondents are obliged to give effect to the order appealed against. U....