2026 (2) TMI 1196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lly. 2. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is challenging the action of the Respondents in withholding jewellery seized at the time of the search, which ought to have been released since the ITAT has set aside the assessment order, and thereafter, there has been no action on the part of the Respondents for eight years. Thus, the Petitioner seeks directions of this Court for release of the said jewellery. BRIEF FACTS: 3. A search and survey action was conducted in the case of Sudhir Jhunjhunwala (son of the Petitioner) and his associates on 13th March, 2008. During the search, jewellery pertaining to the Petitioner was seized, which was approximately valued at Rs. 40,34,100/- and weighed approximately 3,209.900 grams. Pursuant to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 2016. 6. After all this, vide application dated 2nd December, 2024, the Petitioner asked the Respondents for release of the seized jewellery. A similar application was also made on 18th August, 2025. However, the Petitioner has not received any response, because of which the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. SUBMISSIONS: 7. Mr. Padvekar, appearing for the Petitioner, submits that pursuant to the order of the ITAT, it was incumbent upon the Respondents to follow the directions of the ITAT and pass an order within the statutory time limit provided under Section 153(3) of the Act. He submits that since the order of the ITAT was received by the Pr. Commissioner on 6th September 2016, the time limit for passing a fresh a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., but the same shall be passed on the directions of this Court. CONCLUSION 10. We have heard the Counsel and perused the records. 11. It cannot be disputed that the ITAT, vide its order dated 05th April, 2016, remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue of seized jewellery afresh. It also cannot be disputed that the said order was served on the Pr. Commissioner on 9th September, 2016, as stated in the reply to the RTI application filed by the Petitioner. Thus, we are in agreement with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the outer time limit for passing a fresh assessment order in compliance with the directions of the Tribunal was 31st December, 2017, as per Sectio....