GIRIJA SHANKER SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also dispose of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 88, 89 and 90, all of 1976.

(2.) THE Central Excise Authorities, acting under the Gold Control Act, 1968, conducted a search of the premises of Shri Ramlal Sharma, who was a leading advocate of Hoshangabad. In this search, gold and gold ornaments were seized. By order dated 4th November, 1975, the Collector, Customs and Excise, ordered absolute confiscation of primary gold and 3 sovereigns. By the same order, the Collector confiscated gold ornaments weighing 13,894 grams conditionally and directed that they could be redeemed by depositing a fine of Rs. 50,000. THE fine of Rs. 50,000 on payment of which the Collector had permitted the redeeming of gold ornaments was duly paid. But before the ornaments could be returned, they were seized by the income-tax authorities on 24th January, 1976, from the Superintendent, Central Excise, Nagpur, in pursuance of an authorisation issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh, under section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. THEreafter, the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Itarsi, initiated proceedings under section 132(5) of the Act. A notice was issued to Ramlal Sharma who submitted that the ornaments belonged to him and the members of his family as follows : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_875_ITR114_1978Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) DURING the pendency of these petitions, the order of the Collector, Customs and Central Excise, was set aside in appeal and the case was remanded. The petitions, therefore, became infructuous in so far as they challenged the order of the Collector. The petitions have been pressed only in so far as they relate to the impugned order of the Income-tax Officer. The only point that has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that before passing the order, the Income-tax Officer should have issued notices to the petitioners under section 132(5) as they were "persons concerned" within the meaning of that provision. It is not disputed before us that although the statements of the petitioners were filed by Ramlal Sharma in the proceedings under section 132(5), no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Income-tax Officers to afford them opportunity of being heard.