TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 806
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder dated 17th May 2024 passed by Respondent No. 4 rejecting the Application for release of seized jewellery filed by the Petitioner on 6th December 2023. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 8th November 2023, two persons claiming to be employees of the Petitioner Firm were intercepted by the Railway Police while they were on their way to Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh for the purposes of displaying jewellery items to various jewellers and for booking orders at Jabalpur, as claimed by the Petitioner. On being intercepted, the jewellery was seized by the Railway Police and later handed over to the Income Tax Department. The Department claims that since the Investigation Wing was not satisfied with the explanations and the documentary eviden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Competent Authority shall decide the issue on merits without being influenced by the stand taken by parties. 6. Thereafter on 25th April 2024, the Additional Director of Income Tax, Investigation Jabalpur issued a communication directing the ADIT (Inv.) - 1, Jabalpur to transfer the pending Application to the concerned Jurisdictional Assessing Officer being Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central 2(4), Pune (Respondent No. 4 herein). Upon such transfer, Respondent No. 4 passed the Impugned Order dated 20th May 2024 in the name of the Petitioner's employee, namely Mr. Golambade. It was noted that the Petitioner's charge was held by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19(3), Mumbai. Ultimately, the Application came to be rejected a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 4 herself has stated this in Paragraph No. 11.4 that jurisdiction over the Petitioner does not lie with her office. He submitted that if this was the case, then, the exercise of passing the Impugned Order by Respondent No. 4 would be violative of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court vide its orders dated 8th February 2024 and 22nd April 2024. Furthermore, he submitted that the reasoning in the Impugned Order is also premised on the fact that the Petitioner's employee, namely, Mr. Golambade, has not filed any Application and hence, the conditions for release of jewellery remained unsatisfied. He submitted that Mr. Golambade was not the concerned person in terms of Section 132B of the Act to have filed an Applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the Assessing Officer who is dealing with the asset under Section 132 or 132A of the Act is of the opinion that such asset belongs to the person from whose possession it has been recovered, and not liable to be released till the conclusion of the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act, then, there would be conflicting orders. Accordingly, Ms. Nagaraj urged that the Impugned Order deserves to be sustained. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, rival submissions now fall for our consideration. From the emerging facts, it is not in dispute that the Department made a statement before the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court that the Application filed by the Petitioner would be decided on its own merits, with a liberty to tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r do not reflect the stand or submissions advanced by Ms. Nagaraj. 13. On the sole ground of propriety and in view of the foregoing discussion, we deem it fit to quash and set aside the Impugned Order dated 20th May 2024 and direct the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai to decide the Petitioner's Application dated 6th December 2023 afresh. We make it clear that we have not examined the merits of the matter. 14. Hence, we pass the following order: i. The Impugned Order dated 20th May 2024 is hereby quashed and set aside; ii. Respondent No. 5 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai is hereby directed to decide the Petitioner's Application dated 6th December 2023....