TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 867
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Panchanama dated 19.04.2012, to the petitioner. 3. There is no dispute with reference to the facts recorded by this Court in the order dated 04.11.2019, except that the assessment order for the year 2013 - 14 was pending during the relevant point of time, when the order was passed in this writ petition. 4. Under Section 132B(i) of the Income Tax Act, the assets seized under Section 132 or requestioned under Section 132A may be dealt with in the following manner: "(i) the amount of any existing liability under this Act, the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), the Expenditure-tax Act, 1987 (35 of 1987), the Gift tax Act, 1958 (18 of 1958) and the interest tax Act, 1974 (45 of 1974), and the amount of the liability determined on completion....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said order was passed on 17.10.2018 and the petitioner / assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax (Appeals) on 24.11.2018, when the order in W.P.No.23989 of 2018 dated 04.11.2019 was made, it is represented that the assessment proceedings were pending, however the fact is that the assessment order was passed before the order passed in the writ petition and this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court either by the writ petitioner or by the respondent Department. Further, the vital fact relating to the release of the assessee's jewelery was not brought before this Court. Therefore, this Court issued a direction directing the authorities to release the assessee's jewelery, which caused prejudice to the interest of the D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of passing of the order by this Court on 04.11.2019, the tax liability of the petitioner/assessee was determined in the assessment order passed by the competent authority on 17.10.2018 for the assessment year 2013-14. Thus, the vital fact of assessment order dated 17.10.2018 and the tax liability determined by the department was not brought to the notice of this Court at the time of passing of the order. Undoubtedly, the mistake was both on the part of the petitioner/revenue and the respondent/writ petitioner. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner further contended that jewelery worth Rs. 8 Crores and above are with the custody of the department. Even as per the assessment order dated 17.10.2018, the tax liability for....