SUSHILA DEVI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner in these proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution is aggrieved by the refusal - by the respondents i.e. the income tax authorities -to release the jewellery - approximately 319. 98 g, seized by them in the course of search proceedings under Sec. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act ).

(2.) On 10th Aug., 2000, the income tax authorities conducted search and seizure proceedings in respect of the petitioner's husband's premises and seized several documents and other materials. On 21st March 2001 a consequential action by way of search of a locker in the Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) was conducted. The bank locker contained jewellery. That jewellery is the subject matter of these proceedings. On 18th June, 2001, the petitioner's husband requested income tax authorities to release the jewellery and stated that it belonged to his wife, i.e. the petitioner. On 24th March, 2002 and 4th April, 2002, the petitioner requested the income tax authorities for release of the jewellery stating that it belonged to her as it was her stridhan. The petitioner stated that her daughter too owned the jewellery. It was further stated in another letter that the jewellery was needed for religious and family occasions; the petitioner relied upon the contents of guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes to say that the retention of the jewellery was contrary to the instructions. On 29th Aug., 2002, the Assessing Officer (AO) completed his proceedings in respect of the petitioner's husband and demanded about Rs. 1.22 crores as tax towards undisclosed income. In this order the assessing authority accepted that the jewellery found in the locker actually belonged to the petitioner as she claimed.

(3.) The petitioner relies upon the observations in the assessment order of the AO. She renewed her request for release of the jewellery but to no avail. Eventually she even approached the Finance Minister on 30th Jan., 2008 requesting him to intercede in the matter. Once again, on 16th July, 2008, a request was made to the concerned Income Tax Officer for the release of jewellery. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's husband had approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)- aggrieved by the order of the AO. The ITAT set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to conclude the proceedings de novo.