AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A special survey was conducted on 15th Jan., 2001 against 16 jewellers, who participated in "Swarn Sanbandh" exhibition at Hotel Taj Residency, Lucknow during 13th Jan., 2001 to 15th Jan., 2001 in which the petitioner had also participated. The survey was converted into search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') and certain jewellery and other precious items were seized from the petitioner''s residential and business premises. The search and seizure operation has been challenged by the petitioner by means of the present writ petition.
In the meantime, proceedings for block assessment u/s 158BC of the Act were initiated. The AO completed the assessment vide order dt. 30th Jan., 2003 and determined the undisclosed income at Rs. 68.14 lakhs. In appeal the CIT(A) had confirmed the addition of Rs. 91,800 on account of excess silver found. However, he granted relief aggregating Rs. 67,16,498. Both the Revenue and the petitioner carried the matter further in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dt. 30th April, 2007 had dismissed the appeals preferred by the Revenue as also the petitioner including the cross objections.
The argument of the petitioner is that the relief of Rs. 67,16,498 allowed to the petitioner by the CIT(A) stands confirmed by the Tribunal.
An application has been filed by the petitioner seeking release of the seized articles on the ground that its further retention is without authority of law.
We have heard Sri S.M.K. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.D. Chopra, learned senior standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue.
The matter was directed to be listed on 31st Jan., 2008, when on the request of Sri D.D. Chopra it was directed to be listed on 4th Feb., 2008 to enable him to obtain instructions and on 4th Feb., 2008 on his request it was directed to be listed today. Sri D.D. Chopra on the basis of instructions received from the Department, has stated that there was no interim order operating in favour of the Revenue during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal.
It may be mentioned here that the CIT(A) had decided the matter on 26th June, 2003 i.e. about four and half years before. He had allowed the relief of Rs. 67,16,498. The major portion of seized articles has been found to have been duly explained and, therefore, the relief has been given. As there was no interim order passed by the Tribunal pending appeal, the Revenue could not have retained the seized articles any further.
Sri D.D. Chopra submits that the order of the Tribunal dt. 30th April, 2004 has been received by the CIT-I, Lucknow only on 29th Nov., 2007 and the matter is being examined for filing a further appeal before this Court u/s 260A of the Act.
Be that as it may, as there was no interim order passed by the Tribunal during the pendency of the appeal before it for the period of more than four and half years, we see neither any reason nor any justification for the Department to withhold or retain the seized articles any further.
We accordingly direct the Dy. CIT, Central Circle-3, Lucknow, respondent No. 4 to forthwith release the seized articles within a period of three days from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the said authority.
In the event the respondent No. 4 is not the proper authority to release the seized articles, he will indicate who is the proper authority and the petitioner thereafter shall approach the said authority for releasing the seized articles within three days from the date a request is made to the said authority.
In view of the order passed by us today, no further orders are required to be passed in writ petition and it stands disposed of accordingly.