2025 (6) TMI 1496 - HC - Income Tax

Seeking to quash Panchanamas of Seizure of gold jewellery claimed as Stock-in-Trade weighing 4698.81 consisting of various gold ornaments approximately valued at Rs.3.17 crores HELD THAT - We find that after the gold was seized by the Railway Police Force the same was requisitioned by the Deputy Director of Income Tax u/s 132A of the IT Act. Under the provision of Section 132B and more particularly the first proviso thereto the party aggrieved by such requisitioning or seizure can make an Application for release of the assets seized and / or requisitioned as the case may be. That Application has to be made within a period of 30 days from the end of the month in which the assets were seized. The first proviso also stipulates that this Application had to be made to the AO. Such an Application was made by Petitioner No. 1 on 2nd January 2025. However it appears that this Application has been addressed to Dy. Director of Income-Tax (Inv.) DDIT(Inv.) and not to the Assessing Officer. Considering these peculiar facts we are of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the aforesaid Application is decided by the Assessing Officer as required under the first proviso to Section 132B of the IT Act. We are informed that the Assessing Officer is one Mr. Arun Udharao Bende DCIT Central Circle-I. We according dispose of the above Writ Petition by directing the said AO to decide the Application filed by Petitioner No. 1 before the DDIT (Inv.) as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six weeks from today.

Summary

The Bombay High Court disposed of the Writ Petition seeking to quash (i) Panchanamas dated 10th and 11th December 2024, (ii) seizure of gold jewellery claimed as Stock-in-Trade weighing 4698.81 grams valued at approx. Rs.3.17 crores, (iii) Warrant dated 18th December 2024 issued under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and (iv) subsequent seizure actions. Key legal reasoning hinged on procedural compliance under Section 132B of the IT Act, specifically the first proviso requiring the aggrieved party to apply for release of seized assets to the Assessing Officer within 30 days from the end of the seizure month. Although Petitioner No. 1 filed an application on 2nd January 2025, it was incorrectly addressed to the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) instead of the Assessing Officer.The Court directed the Assessing Officer, Mr. Arun Udharao Bende, DCIT, Central Circle-I, to decide the application "as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of six weeks," expressly clarifying that no opinion was expressed on the merits and all contentions remain open. There was no order as to costs.