JIWAN LAL KAPOOR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the third round of litigation by the petitioner in the matter of release of jewellery lying with the authorities of IT Department which was seized at Bhopal in the month of June, 2002. The facts :

(2.) SHRI Rajiv Kapoor son of petitioner-Jiwan Lal Kapoor had gone to Bhopal in the month of June, 2002 carrying with him gold jewellery weighing 3934.410 grams valued at Rs. 17,50,808. He went to the shop of M/s Shrinagar Jewellers at Bhopal on 13th June, 2002, when an income-tax raid took place in that shop. Amongst others, the jewellery which Rajiv Kapoor was carrying with him was also seized along with bill books, vouchers, etc. by the IT authorities from the shop of M/s Shrinagar Jewellers, Bhopal. The officer dealing with the case of M/s Shrinagar Jewellers Bhopal, recorded a prima facie finding that the jewellery seized from Rajiv Kapoor did not belong to M/s Shrinagar Jewellers and that it is the unaccounted jewellery of M/s J.L. Kapoor & Sons, Amritsar of which Rajiv Kapoor was a representative. After recording the said finding, he transferred the record to his counter-part at Amritsar for taking necessary action against M/s J.L. Kapoor & Sons. The AO at Amritsar issued notice to M/s J.L. Kapoor and sons under s. 158BD of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). The petitioner challenged the proceedings initiated against M/s J.L. Kapoor & Sons in CWP No. 18844 of 2002 in which he prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash telephonic authorisation given by the Jt. Director of IT, Bhopal for conducting of search and seizure of goods by Asstt. CIT, Bhopal and for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to release the goods and related documents like bills, books and vouchers. The same was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 4th March, 2003 [reported as Jiwan Lal Kapoor vs. Union of India (2003) 182 CTR (P&H) 169--Ed.] by directing the assessing authority to examine the books of account and other material which may be produced before him and then record a finding whether the jewellery seized from Rajiv Kapoor had been accounted for or not. The relevant extracts of the order passed by the Division Bench read as under :

(3.) WE have examined the disputed entries and find that the opinion formed by respondent No. 2 qua the correctness of those entries is based on misreading of relevant page of the stock register. If the officer had bothered to undertake a comprehensive study of various entries, he would have surely realised that the so-called overwritings are irrelevant and insignificant and the figures recorded therein tally with other entries. In view of this, we hold that the conclusion recorded by respondent No. 2 that entries recorded in the stock register are not genuine is per se erroneous and the same has the effect of vitiating the impugned order.