Smt. Neera Uberoi vs Union of India

By this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks directions to release the jewellery that was seized on 8-9-1981, re-refund amounts claimed by the petitioner and further to release the saving bank accounts. The cash, jewellery and the bank accounts were seized in a search and seizure operation conducted against the petitioner on 8-9-1981.

This writ petition was filed on 25-5-1995 and the learned counsel for the respondents has filed an application in December 1995 stating therein that the properties in question have since been released by orders dated 11-10-1995, 14-11-1995 and 1 -12-1995, and that, therefore, this writ petition has become infructuous.

Shri V.B. Upadhayaya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not dispute the release of the seized goods. However, he contends that the interest on the amount seized is payable to the assessee in accordance with the various provisions under the income tax Act, 1961 including section 132B(4). He also pointed out that in this case the assessment order that was made initially was subsequently set aside by the appellate authority, and thereafter no assessment was made, meaning thereby that no liability for tax was determined.

As regards interest and grant thereof, it will depend on the determination of various facts and consideration of the relevant provisions under the Act. So far as the Assessing Officer is not shown to have passed any order determining these facts and declining to grant it, in our view, the petitioner may approach the ITO with the necessary facts and figures and claim interest, as admissible to her under the law.

If such an application is filed, the Assessing Officer will dispose of the same expeditiously, and in any view within three months from the date of production of such application, accompanied by a copy of this order.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the following observations :

The prayer for the release of the goods mentioned in clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of the relief clause of the petition is rejected as having become infructuous.

The petitioner may approach the ITO and set up her claim for interest, which the ITO, Ward 2(7), Kanpur, respondent No. 3 shall decide within a period of three months from the date of such an application, accompanied by a certified copy of this order made before him, in accordance with law.

It is clarified that the order dated 15-4-1993, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure 10 to the writ petition, passed by the ITO, Ward 2(7), Kanpur, respondent No. 3, will not prevent the petitioner from making claim for interest. The petitioner will get costs of the writ petition from the respondents.