Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 953 - MADRAS HIGH COURTValidity of assessment order - Seizure of gold u/s 132 - Jurisdiction - Presumption u/s 292C - HELD THAT:- Since the investigation and eventual seizure by the officers of the 2nd respondent was pursuant to the tip off from the officers of the 1st respondent at the Chennai Kamaraj International Airport when the 4th petitioner was boarding the flight in evening to Kolkata on 30.06.2016 carrying gold, the 2nd respondent ought to have seized the gold and sent it to his counterpart for further investigation. Detention & seizure effected by the officers at Kolkata shows arbitrary exercise of power in as much as person claiming to be the owners of the seized gold bullion and jewellery is admittedly located within the State of Tamil Nadu at Chennai and carry on business in retail sale and manufacture of gold jewellery. Seized gold should be directed to be delivered to the office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai who may himself decide or nominate a senior officer from the department to investigate the case. The 1st and the 2nd petitioners along with 3rd and 4th petitioners and the 4th respondent may thereafter file appropriate written submission together with evidence in support of this case before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or any other senior officer of the Income Tax Department who may be nominated by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai for the aforesaid purpose. It is for the said officer to conclude as to whether the 1st petitioner and/or the 4th respondent or both can claim ownership over the seized gold bullion and jewellery which was seized from the 4th petitioner by the 2nd respondent on 01.07.2016. If on further investigation such officer comes to a conclusion that the explanation offered by the 1st and 2nd petitioners along with the 4th petitioner and 4th respondent are unsatisfactory, appropriate steps shall be thereafter taken in accordance with law. On the other hand, if on enquiry it is concluded that the 1st petitioner or the 4th respondent are indeed the owner of the seized gold bullion and jewellery, it shall be handed over to the lawful owner or person who is entitled to it. The above exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from date of receipt of a copy of this order strictly without any deviation. The petitioners shall be given due notice of hearing before order is passed. As far as impugned order dated 31.12.2018 passed by the 5th respondent is concerned, liberty is given to the 4th petitioner to take appropriate steps against the said order before the jurisdictional Appellate Commissioner within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
|