TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, certain jewellery was seized from one L. The petitioner claimed to be the wife of the adopted son of L. Held that- the jewellery was not available with the Revenue but had been sold for recovery of dues and though the petitioner relied on the order of assessment passed in the year 1999 and also claimed that it was the duty of the Revenue to return the jewellary within 120 days, thereafter the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gms. to unauthorised persons and to give compensation to the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that in search conducted on November 20, 1979, under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, certain jewellery was seized from one Lachhman Dass Verma. The petitioner claims to be the wife of the adopted son of Lachhman Dass namely Rajinder Kumar Verma. The assessment was done in the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2006, annexure A-2. It has also been stated that there was litigation pending about succession of the late Lachhman Dass. Further stand of the Revenue is that the seized gold was sold on March 30, 2000 and April 11, 2000 to recover the dues and thus, the jewellery in question was not available with the Revenue. Similar stand has been taken by the private respondents who purchased the jewellery. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been sold for recovery of dues and though the petitioner relied on the order of assessment passed in the year 1999 and also claims that it was the duty of the Revenue to return the jewellery within 120 days, thereafter, the petitioner never raised such claim for a period of about 10 years. In these circumstances, the case of the petitioner is fully covered by order of this court dated December ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
