9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anner and expeditiously;" 2. On the previous date i.e., 13.08.2021, we had, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, at great length, captured the contours of the dispute, which arose for consideration, in the instant matter. 2.1. In order to avoid prolixity, and for the sake of convenience, the relevant part of the order dated 13.08.2021 is set forth hereafter:- "2. Apart from anything else, one of the principal arguments raised by Mr. Manish Vashisht, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, is that, once an application for release of jewellery was made, an order had to be passed qua the same, within 120 days from the date on which the last authorisation for search was executed under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). 2.1. This argument is pivoted on the provisions of Section 132B of the Act. In particular, qua the aforementioned argument, Mr. Vashisht lays stress on the provisos appended to clause (i) of sub-section (1) the said provision. 2.2. It is not in dispute that, the search qua the petitioner was triggered on 22.11.2017. It is also not in dispute that, the search memo was drawn up on 03.01.2018. 2.3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chand Malu (HUF) v. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, [2016] 69 taxmann.com 437 (Gauhati). (ii) Nadim Dilip Bhai Panjvani v. Income Tax Officer, Ward no. 3, [2016] 66 taxmann.com 124 (Gujarat). 2.9. Likewise, insofar as Mr. Hossain is concerned, he relied upon a judgement of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court rendered in Jinkal Dineshbhai Virvadiya v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [2014] 367 ITR 713 (Gujarat) for the proposition that, the "satisfaction" of the AO attains critical significance, in the context of the first proviso to Section 132B of the Act. 3. For the sake of convenience, the relevant provisions of Section 132B of the Act are extracted hereafter: "132B. (1) The assets seized under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A may be dealt with in the following manner, namely:- (i) ......... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circle 14] where the AO was positioned. 4.1. In this context, the submission of Mr. Hossain, as noticed above, is that, the application, dated 09.02.2018, was not addressed to the AO, and hence, was not viable in law. In our view, in the facts and circumstances of this case, this submission cannot be sustained for the following reasons: i. The application for release of jewellery was served on a senior officer, who could have done one of the two things: a) first, responded to the application and said he was not the concerned officer; and b) second, he could have had the application placed before the concerned officer i.e. the AO. He did neither. What made it worse, is that, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, who had received a copy of the application, and was deployed in the same circle i.e. Circle-14(1), Delhi, as the AO, also took no steps in the matter. 4.2. The failure on the part of the officers, to act in furtherance of the law, and adopt a citizen centric approach, has resulted in the matter, concerning release of jewellery, hanging fire since February 2018. 4.3. The dictum that, ignorance of law is no excuse, has a different connotation and application. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to furnish security in the form of unencumbered immovable property and cash, accompanied by an undertaking of the petitioner that she would not part or create third party rights in the jewellery, [if released], to allay the apprehensions of the respondents/revenue that in case the petitioner were to finally lose, she would be in a position to pay the demand raised by the respondents/revenue, appears to be fair and reasonable. 6.1. More specifically, Mr. Vashisht has offered the following as security in lieu of release of jewellery: (i) Immovable property, which, according to the petitioner, is worth, approximately, Rs. 6,65,00,000/-. It is stated that the petitioner will deposit the original title deeds concerning the subject property, with the respondents/revenue, along with an undertaking to the effect that no encumbrance will be created qua the same. (ii) The petitioner will not seek release of cash, amounting to Rs. 54,7400/-, which is, presently, in the custody of the respondents/revenue. (iii) The petitioner will deposit a further sum of Rs. 20,23,043/-, which is the difference between 20% of the principal demand, less Rs. 54,74,000/-; an amount, which is, already ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
