TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing 53.63 kgs. of silver was seized. The said Lachhman Das Verma admitted that out of the jewellery seized, 10 kgs. of jewellery belonged to the petitioner. On 31-3-1982, assessment order was passed. However, the said order was set-aside and after remand, fresh assessment order dated 29-10-1999 (Annexure P-1) was passed, wherein it was, inter alia, held:- . . . The benefit of disclosure made by Sh. Rajinder Kumar, therefore, cannot be denied to the assessee when the findings of the search action have been collectively reported at one point. Silver jewellery found is accordingly considered further explained to the extent of 10 kgs. as covered by the disclosure of Sh. Rajinder Kumar. 3. In view of this finding, the petitioner app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... connection with such assessment) and in respect of which such person is in default or is deemed to be in default, may be recovered out of such assets: Provided that where the person concerned makes an application to the Assessing Officer within thirty days from the end of the month in which the asset was seized, for release of asset and the nature and source of acquisition of any such asset is explained to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, the amount of any existing liability referred to in this clause may be recovered out of such asset and the remaining portion, if any, of the asset may be released, with the prior approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, to the person from whose custody the assets were seized: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred to in clause (i) of sub-section (1) are discharged shall be forthwith made over or paid to the persons from whose custody the assets were seized. 8. There is no dispute that the seized articles belonged to the petitioner and in fact, in the order passed by the Income-tax Officer itself, this fact has been acknowledged. Even the person from whom the said articles were seized, took the same stand. 9. In such a situation, when there is no dispute about title of the petitioner to the seized goods, provisions of section 132B(3) of the Act cannot be applied. A procedural provision cannot defeat the substantive rights of a person. The said provision is intended to apply in case of dispute of title or absence of title and not when titl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
