Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- RAMESH RANGANATHAN
Outcome
Disposed of
These writ petitions shall stand disposed of accordingly with
Provisions considered
Judgment
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioners are aggrieved by communication dated
9.9.2010 of the 2nd respondent. By the said communication the petitioners were informed that as per the opinion of the 3rd respondent the jewellery seized during the course of search and seizure operations can be released if the assessee submits bank guarantee for equivalent amount. After preliminary hearing on 9.11.2010, we directed the Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax to get instructions in the matter. The 1st respondent also filed counter affidavit inter alia pleading that they also filed appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore to safeguard the interests of revenue such an order was passed. After hearing the Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the Senior Counsel Income Tax and perusing the counter affidavits, we are convinced that the law does not bar release of seized jewellery to the assessee after the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal without demanding bank guarantee. In Hariharnath Agarwal and Sons (HUF) v. Commissioner of Income Tax[1], considering a similar issue it was held that, there was no justification for revenue to demand bank guarantee for releasing the seized assets when the regular assessment was already completed. We, respectfully, are in agreement with the reasoning of the said judgment.
Operative part
In view of the above reasons, the impugned communication is unsustainable in law and the same is set aside. A direction shall issue to respondents 1 and 2 to release the seized jewellery to the petitioners without insisting on furnishing bank guarantee. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from today. These writ petitions shall stand disposed of accordingly with the above observations and directions. _____________ V.V.S.RAO, J ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, 28.12.2010 Note: Office to despatch a copy of this order by tomorrow and to furnish a copy to the Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax for being communicated to respondents 1 to 3. B/o [1] (1996) 221 ITR 486 (All)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: These writ petitions shall stand disposed of accordingly with
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Income Tax Act, 1961.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.