TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (4) TMI 113
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to be belonging to the petitioner which was seized on March 14, 1988. The facts giving rise to the writ petition are as under : The petitioner was married to Shri Suresh Singal on November 27, 1987. After her marriage, she resided with her husband at the house of her father-in-law, Shri Prithipal Singal at 34/56, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi. The petitioner claims that at the time of her marriage, she had brought 454.2 grams of gold ornaments to the house of her in-laws. It is the case of the petitioner that she had acquired the ornaments from her personal income which were duly declared before the Income-tax Officer at Bombay before her marriage. The petitioner asserts that she filed four returns under the voluntary disclosure schem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithipal Singal. The order shows that the same was passed in regard to Shri Prithipal Singal considering the jewellery to be belonging to him. By that order, the Income-tax Officer declined to release the assets seized during the search of the house of Shri Prithipal Singal on December 10, 1987. Aggrieved by the order passed by the fourth respondent, the petitioner filed an application under section 132(11) of the Income-tax Act on August 30, 1988, before the second respondent, Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar. In that application, the petitioner, inter alia, stated that the gold ornaments weighing 405.03 grams seized during the course of search and seizure operations, belonged to her and the same were seized from her p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....given an opportunity of being heard. It is not disputed that when the impugned order under section 132(5) was passed by the second respondent, she was not heard. The application under section 132(11) of the Income-tax Act filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar, was neither considered nor disposed of by him. She was not given any opportunity of hearing either by the second respondent or the fourth respondent. It is no consolation for the petitioner that. the application of Shri Prithipal Singal was disposed of by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Rather disposal of the application of Shri Prithipal Singal by the Commissioner of Income-tax works to the prejudice of the petitioner as without hearing her in her application, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is father, Shri Prithipal Singal, in 34/56, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi. " Learned counsel submitted that the entire premise on the basis of which the second respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner was staying separately from her father-in-law and the jewellery seized from the house of the father-in-law did not belong to her, was incorrect. He also reiterated that the jewellery seized by the Income-tax Department belonged to the petitioner and she had disclosed the same under the amnesty scheme before her marriage. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the jewellery did not belong to the petitioner and belonged to her father-in-law and the same was rightly seized in order to meet the liabi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... because she was residing at 34/56, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi, or whether the jewellery belonged to her. In these circumstances, the petitioner was an affected party and she should have been heard by the Income-tax Officer and also by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Both these authorities passed the orders without hearing the petitioner, thus infringing her right to be heard and to have her say in the matter. The Commissioner of Income-tax even failed to dispose of her application under section 132(11) of the Income-tax Act. It is well-settled that a party must be heard before passing an order adverse to his/her interests. In the instant case, the petitioner has not been heard and her application under section 132(11) of the Income-tax....