BHAWNA LODHA Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ-petitioner has made the following prayer/s in the present writ petition: -

(2.) A search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was conducted at the residential house of the petitioner on 18.01.2007 and inter-alia, 1004.8 grams gold jewellery was seized during the course of said search. After search, the block assessment was completed for the years 2001-02 to 2006-07 by the Assessing Authority vide assessment order dated 31.10.2008; and certain demands of tax and penalty was raised against the petitioner. In the appeals filed by the petitioner-assessee, the assessee got certain relief/s in the additions made in the declared income of the petitionerassessee vide Annex.6 order of the appellate authority dated 22.11.2010. The assessee has given summary of the demands and appeal effect, which shows that after deposit of disputed demand with interest and penalty amount as per orders passed by the Assessing Authority, the assessee became entitled to a refund of Rs.1,20,874/- with interest from the Income Department. The petitioner-assessee also filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of penalty passed against her under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income-tax- Act vide order dated 07.03.2012 imposing penalty of Rs.72,300/-, which is still pending.

(3.) The assessee has admittedly paid even the amount of penalty also as stated in para 13 of the writ petition. In para 13, the petitioner has categorically stated that entire amount of demand raised in the assessment orders was deposited by her and the appeals of the petitioner also came to be allowed giving substantial relief/s to the petitioner; and only one of the aforesaid appeal against penalty is pending before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. However, the respondent authorities of the Income-tax Department have not yet released the gold ornaments/jewellery seized at the time of search conducted on the residential place, which includes her 'Stridhan' and personal jewellery, even though there is no existing demand of tax against the petitioner-assessee.