RAJESH ASRANI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Sanjay Mishra for the petitioner.

(2.) SHRI Rohit Arya, senior advocate, with Shri Sanjeev Tuli, present in the Court, is directed to take notice on behalf of the respondents. A copy of the petition along with annexures be supplied to Shri Rohit Arya. Even though Shri Arya prays for time to seek instructions and file reply, but considering the nature of relief claimed by the petitioner and the order, which is proposed to be passed, this Court is the considered view that filing of reply may not be necessary. conducted by the competent authorities of the IT Department in the course of search and seizure various properties and assets of the petitioner were seized. Assessment proceedings were held and appeals were also filed against the orders of assessment. After conclusion of the appellate proceedings, the matter has attained finality and it is stated that petitioner had been making repeated applications to respondent No. 1, the competent authority, for release of the assets seized in petitioner for release of the seized assets and respondent No. 1 is sitting tight over the matter and not responding to the prayer made by the petitioner.

(3.) Considering the short grievance made by the petitioner, interest of justice would be met in case respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for release of the seized assets in the raid in question, and decide the same by a speaking order in accordance to law. In case the proceedings have come to an end, under law petitioner is entitled to release of assets, respondent No. 1 may pass appropriate orders in accordance to the statutory provision in this regard.