TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1046
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in relation to addition made in respect of the alleged unexplained jewellery has already been paid. Facts of the Case 4. A search action under Section 132 of the Act was carried out in Bipinchandra Patel Group of cases including the petitioner on 02.12.2015. During the course of search gold, diamond jewellery worth Rs. 1,53,35,538/- were found belonging to the petitioner and her family members. Out of such jewellery and valuables, the department had seized certain jewellery and valuables (gold weighing 3473.700 grms and diamond weighing 6.97 carat) worth Rs. 87,85,338/-. Pursuant to the search, proceedings under Section 153(A) of the Act were initiated. Eventually, the assessment for the assessment year 2016-17 was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act, vide order dated 29.12.2017, whereby the then Assessing Officer held that an addition of Rs. 1,03,86,88/- was required to be made on account of unexplained investment in jewellery and such addition was to be made case of the petitioner and "Manjuben B. Patel, the mother-in-law of the petitioner. However, no person wise or item wise bifurcation was provided to the department. Therefore, out of the total sum of Rs. 1,03,86,88....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ling the appeal pending before the ITAT was accepted. 4.5 Thus, it is an established fact that the petitioner has paid the requisite amount of tax in relation to the addition made in respect of the unexplained investment in the jewellery found and seized during the course of the search proceedings. 4.6 Even after, the department issued a certificate under Form -5 under the VsV Scheme since her jewellery was not released, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 25.02.2021 to the Prime Minister Grievance Cell and vide letter dated 08.07.2021to the Assessing Officer. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has already paid additional sum of Rs. 7,540/-, which was claimed to be an outstanding amount vide challan dated 23.06.2021. However, her jewellery was not released hence, she was constrained to again write a letter dated 26.07.2021 and also a reminder letter to the Assessing Officer, requesting to release the jewellery. Further communications were also written by her and ultimately, pursuant to the letter dated 24.01.2022 the PCIT, vide notice dated 28.02.2022, afforded an opportunity of hearing for release of the seized jewellery. The petitioner accordingly cooperated an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore respondents may be directed to release the seized jewellery of the present petitioner. 6. Per Contra, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani, appearing for the respondents while pointing out the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply along with the Circular dated 21.01.2009 has submitted that in accordance with paragraph no. 3(b)(i) &(ii) of F.No.286/6/2008-IT (Inv.II), the Assessing Officer was precluded from releasing the seized jewellery of present petitioner in view of pending demand of her mother-in-law as the jewellery was seized from the locker jointly owned with the present petitioner. Thus, it is submitted at this stage, the jewellery which had been seized cannot be released. 7. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, at length. 8. The aforesaid proceedings after the search action conducted at Bimpinchandra Patel group on 02.12.2015 and the seizure of the jewellery of the present petitioner along with her mother-in-law is not in dispute. Two individual Assessment Orders qua present petitioner as well as her mother-in-law Mrs. Manjulaben Patel were passed in respect of unexplained jewellery seized from the locke....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate has been filed before me and it has been claimed by the appellant to have been received as gift from her. In the submission. I also find that a notice u/s 17(1) of the WT Act 1957 side dated 29/03/2018 was issued by the AO and a copy of WT Return (WTS Form ElA for the Α.Υ. 2011-12 verified on 25/04/2018 by the appellant (albeit without any stamp of receipt of the return by the Deptt) has been enclosed which shows net wealth of Rs. 28.98.810/- fas on the valuation date 31/03/2011) for gold ornaments of 1395 grams. Even assuming that the valuation carried out for the purpose of said WT return is correct, it will be natural presumption that the disclosure made of jewellery of 1269.40 grams in the VDIS 1997 and received as gift is included in the said WT valuation dated 31/03/2011 and these jewellery and ornaments of 1395 grams. may be treated as explained for the purpose of IT proceedings and that these will also include all the gifts received till 31/03/2011. *** VII. The appellant has claimed benefit of 1700 grams of gold jewellery and ornaments on account of CBDT's instruction No.1916 for 2 married ladies (herself and her mother-in-law, Smt. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5.12 The AO is directed to make the addition to the total income as above in place of the substantive addition of Rs. 51,93,444/- and protective addition of Rs. 51,93,444/- made in the impugned assessment order. The AO is also directed to issue a fresh notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) for the enhanced addition after the appeal effect" 9. Thus, a bare reading of the findings recorded by the CIT (A) it is held that the jewellery in ornaments weighing 3537.100 grms of Gold and 26.98 carat of Diamond remains unexplained and the same are owned by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was directed to issue Fresh Notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the enhanced addition. 9.1 An order dated 11.03.2019 was passed by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Central Circle-1, Vadodara, giving effect to the order of CIT Appeal and revised income of Rs. 1,32,83,753/- was determined. The petitioner vide communication dated 20.03.2019 partly paid the demand and requested that the rest of the demand would be paid in installments on 25.06.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner requested for release of the jewellery after the payment of the outstanding a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assets should be released only with the prior approval of Commissioner of income tax or Chief Commissioner of income tax, However, no approval should be given for release of (i) that part of the seized assets, the value of which is sufficient to adjust any existing liability and the amount of liability determined on completion of the search and seizure assessments; and also (ii) that part of seized assets which is sufficient to meet the expected liability on account of the penalty imposable in cases where penalty proceeding connected with search assessments have been initiated." 10. We are of the considered opinion, that the respondent-0fficer has traveled beyond the intention of the aforesaid Circular by roping in the demand of mother-in-law for refusing the release of the seized jewellery of the present petitioner even after categorical finds of CIT Appeals and also issuance of Form-5 under the Vivad se Vishawas Scheme. By taking shelter under Circular dated 21.01.2009, in fact, the respondents have questioned the findings recorded by the CIT Appeals and also issuance of Form-5 by the competent authority. The provisions of paragraph no.3(b) (i) &(ii) cannot b....