Abhijit Reodikar vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

WP/3533/2013HC Madhya Pradesh13 August 2013Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE3 pages

For Petitioner: Sumit Nema

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, considering the peculiar facts and the claim of ownership by petitioner No. 2, disposed of the matter with specific directions. Petitioner No. 2 was permitted to take the jewellery seized from petitioner No. 1's premises on 'Supurdgi' upon furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to the value of the jewellery. Additionally, petitioner No. 2 was required to file an undertaking not to sell or transfer the jewellery without prior permission from the respondents until the assessment proceedings were decided. The respondents were directed to hand over the jewellery upon fulfillment of these conditions. Regarding the mobile phone of petitioner No. 2, the Tribunal directed the petitioners to move a separate application before the respondents, which would be considered according to law. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

This case involves a writ petition filed by Abhijit Reodikar and others (petitioners) challenging actions by the Commissioner of Income Tax and others (respondents). A search was conducted on the premises of petitioner No. 2 and 3, where certain jewellery was seized. Subsequently, on June 20, 2012, the premises of petitioner No. 1 were searched, and jewellery and other materials were seized. Petitioner No. 2 claims ownership of the seized jewellery and sought its return on 'Supurdgi' (custody) pending assessment proceedings. The respondents initially objected but agreed to release the jewellery upon furnishing a bank guarantee equal to its value. The petitioners argued that, as per CBDT circulars, petitioner No. 2 was entitled to jewellery up to 950 grams without a bank guarantee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether petitioner No. 2 is entitled to take possession of the jewellery seized from petitioner No. 1's premises on 'Supurdgi' without furnishing a bank guarantee for the entire value, considering CBDT circulars regarding 'Stridhan'. (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of CBDT circulars and the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contention: Petitioner No. 2 is entitled to the jewellery up to 950 grams as per CBDT circulars and should not be required to furnish a bank guarantee for this portion. Revenue's Contention: There is a serious dispute of ownership regarding the jewellery seized from petitioner No. 1. Therefore, petitioner No. 2 should furnish a bank guarantee equal to the entire value of the seized jewellery if she wishes to take it on 'Supurdgi'.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1....

W.P. No. 3533 of 2013 Abhijit Reodikar & others The Commissioner of Income Tax & others 13.08.2013 Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sanjay Lal, Counsel for the respondents. In view of the order dated 10.7.2013, petitioner No.1 has filed an affidavit that he has no objection if the jewelleries seized from his premises are handed over on Supurdgi to petitioner No.2. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the correctness of the aforesaid affidavit. In view of the aforesaid affidavit, we propose to dispose of this petition finally. The search was carried out in the premises of petitioner No.2 and 3 in which certain jewelleries were seized but as per the circular of CBDT, the jewelleries which were Stridhan of petitioner No.2 were not seized by the respondents. However, on 20.6.2012, the premises of the petitioner No.1 was searched in which certain jewelleries and other material were found which were seized by the respondents. The claim of the petitioner No.2 is that the seized jewelleries belongs to her and during the pendency of the proceedings for assessment, she may be allowed Supurdgi of the jewelleries. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised an objection that the aforesaid jewelleries should not be given to the petitioner No.2. However, on furnishing the bank guarantee equal to the amount of jewelleries, respondents have no objection to give the jewelleries on Supurdgi to petitioner No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the circular of the CBDT, petitioner No.2 is entitled for the jewelleries up to 950 grams and to this extent, petitioner No.2 may be permitted not to furnish bank guarantee. The aforesaid prayer is opposed by Shri Lal, learned counsel for the respondents who submitted that in respect of the jewelleries seized from petitioner No.1 there is serious dispute of ownership so

2....

W.P. No. 3533 of 2013 Abhijit Reodikar & others The Commissioner of Income Tax & others 13.08.2013 in case the petitioner No.2 is inclined to take supurdgi of the aforesaid jewelleries, she may take the same by furnishing the bank guarantee equal to the amount of jewelleries which were seized by the respondents. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, as the petitioner No.2 is claiming the jewelleries of her own, we finally dispose of this matter with the following directions :- 1. The petitioner No.2 is permitted to take the jewelleries seized on 20.6.2012 from the premises of Petitioner No.1, on supurdgi on furnishing bank guarantee to the amount of the value of the jewelleriess. Petitioner No.2 shall also file an undertaking before the respondents that till the decision of the assessment proceedings, petitioner No.2 shall not sell or transfer the jewelleries without seeking prior permission of the respondents. 2. On furnishing the aforesaid, respondents shall hand over the jewelleries to the petitioner No.2 on Supurdginama. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Mobile phone of petitioner No.2 is also with the respondents, which may be directed to be handed over to the petitioner No.2 on supurdgi. In this regard, petitioners may move an application before the respondents which shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade) Acting Chief Justice Judge

3....

W.P. No. 3533 of 2013 Abhijit Reodikar & others The Commissioner of Income Tax & others 13.08.2013

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →