RAMESHKUMAR RAMCHANDRA JAJU vs. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (INV), AHMEDABAD

C/SCA/13094/2021 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13094 of 2021 ========================================================== RAMESHKUMAR RAMCHANDRA JAJU Versus THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (INV), AHMEDABAD ========================================================== Appearance: VIJAY H PATEL(7361) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6 M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

Date : 05/04/2022

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicants have prayed for the following reliefs; “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order of seizure dated 15.06.2013 passed by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Unit-3, u/s.132 in the interest of justice; (C ) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to release the seized jewellery pursuant to order dated 13.06.2013 passed u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the Page 1 of 6

C/SCA/13094/2021 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2022 interest of justice; (D) Such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be granted.” 2. The facts, giving rise to this writ application, may be summarized as under; 2.1 It appears from the materials on record that a search action under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act, 1961”) was carried out at the business/residential premises of one Vijaynarayan Rameshkumar Jaju on 13th June, 2013. Vijaynarayan Rameshkumar Jaju happens to be the son of the writ applicant No.1 and husband of the writ applicant No.3. The proceedings under Section 153A of the Act were initiated for the last six assessment years. It further appears that no return was filed by Vijaynarayan R. Jaju. Although notice under Section 142(1) was issued to Vijaynarayan Jaju dated 27th May, 2015 along with the detailed consolidated questionnaire, yet no reply was filed by Vijaynarayan Jaju. Ultimately, the final order of assessment came to be passed in the case of Vijaynarayan Jaju dated 10th March, 2016 under Section 144 read with Section 153B(1)(b) of the Act, 1961. Vijaynarayan R. Jaju was assessed on total income of Rs.98,01,400/-. 2.2 We are informed that Vijaynarayan Jaju preferred an Page 2 of 6

C/SCA/13094/2021 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2022 appeal against the above referred assessment order before the CIT(A) and the appeal was ordered to be dismissed. The matter is now pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2.3 On 13th June, 2013, when the business/residential premises of Vijaynarayan Jaju was searched under Section 132 of the Act, cash to the tune of Rs.25 Lakh and few other articles in the form of jewellery etc. were seized. In the assessment order of Vijaynarayan, we find reference of the cash which was recovered and seized from his residence. However, we do not find any reference of the jewellery which was seized at the time of the search. The writ applicants herein claim that the jewellery which was seized at the time of the search belongs to them. Vijaynarayan has nothing to do with the jewellery. In such circumstances, the seized jewellery should be returned by the Department to the writ applicants. The principal argument of the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicants is that the fact that the seized jewellery belongs to the writ applicants is substantiated by the last wealth tax return for A.Y.2012-13. The argument is that the jewellery seized during the course of the search does not exceed the gold ornaments/diamonds and silver shown in the wealth tax return. 2.4 We take notice of the fact that we are talking about the search which was carried out in the year 2013. Page 3 of 6

C/SCA/13094/2021 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2022 Thereafter, the final assessment order came to be passed in the year 2016 in the case of Vijaynarayan Jaju. It is only after a period of almost eight years that the writ applicants preferred a representation addressed to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad dated 13th February, 2021 requesting to release the seized assets (jewellery). It is the case of the writ applicants that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad failed to look into the representation and as no decision was taken, the writ applicants are here before this Court with the present writ application. 3. We have heard Mr. Vijay Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicants and Mr. M.R. Bhatt, the learned senior counsel appearing for the revenue. 4. On 14th September, 2021, a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order; “The petitioners are before this Court seeking to release the assets seized pursuant to the search and seizure under section 132 of the Income Tax in case of sibling of the petitioners dated 13.06.2021. During the search and seizure proceedings, jewelry owned and possessed by the petitioners also have been seized and not released till date.. It is the case of the petitioners that they were able to explain the source of jewelry and the place from which it was purchased as well as show the Wealth Tax Return for the A.Y. 2012-13 filed by the petitioners and other family members worth of Rs.2 Crores (rounded off). Thrice communications have been sent and requests are also made to return the same, however, till date, Page 4 of 6

C/SCA/13094/2021 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2022 neither reply has been given nor has the jewelry been returned. According to the learned advocate Mr. Patel, in case of brother of the petitioners, Assessment Order has been passed on 10.03.2016 where no addition has been made by the authority concerned, and none of the communications made by the petitioner has been replied to client. It is further urged that challenge is made to the order of Assessing Officer before the appellate authority, present status of which, he can reveal on the next date of hearing. NOTICE, returnable on 04.10.2021.” 5. We are of the view that the Principal Commissioner, Income Tax-I, Ahmedabad should look into the representation filed by the writ applicants dated 13th February, 2021, Annexure-F, Page-88 and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. The representation appears to be quite exhaustive. It contains all the necessary particulars to enable the Principal Commissioner to arrive at a particular conclusion. 6. We dispose of this writ application with a direction to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad to look into the representation filed by the writ applicants within a period of 15 days from today. If need be, give an opportunity of personal hearing and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on or before 31st May, 2022 without fail. If the order is adverse to the writ applicants, it is open for them to question the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. It shall also be Page 5 of 6

C/SCA/13094/2021 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2022 open for the writ applicants to even question the legality and validity of the seizure itself before the Principal Commissioner, Ahmedabad. 7. With the aforesaid, this writ application stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) Vahid Page 6 of 6