NARENDER KUMAR SEKHRI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II AAYAKAR BHAWAN JALANDHAR PB & ANR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/3635/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01094385201623 February 2016Author: MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent No.1 (Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jalandhar) to take a decision on the petitioner's letter dated 9.12.2015 within two months from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. This decision is to be made in accordance with the law, after passing a speaking order and affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The Court further directed that if it is found that the petitioner is entitled to the release of the jewellery, it should be released within one month thereafter, in accordance with law. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The issue of whether the jewellery should be released was left to be decided by the respondent authority.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Narender Kumar Sekhri, challenges the respondents' inaction in releasing jewellery weighing 543.800 gms, seized in 1994 under Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A search on August 16, 1994, led to the seizure of cash and jewellery valued at ` 2,39,272/-. The Assessing Officer initially added this jewellery as undisclosed income for assessment year 1995-96. The CIT(Appeals) deleted this addition. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order and remanded it to the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer accepted the petitioner's surrender, assessed total income at ` 4,02,750/-, and created a demand of ` 1,59,690/-. Further demands were raised under Section 154, totaling ` 57,531/-, which the petitioner paid. Despite a letter dated December 9, 2015, requesting the release of the seized jewellery, no action was taken, leading to the present writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondents have failed to act on the petitioner's representation dated 9.12.2015 seeking the release of seized jewellery, thereby violating the petitioner's right to a timely decision? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel argued that a representation dated 9.12.2015 was made to respondent No.1 for the release of seized jewellery, but no action has been taken. The petitioner seeks a direction for the respondents to decide this representation. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding the delay in releasing the jewellery or the merits of the petitioner's claim. The focus of the court's decision is on directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132B,Section 132A,Section 271(1)(c),Section 154,Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.2.2016 Narender Kumar Sekhri ....Petitioner. Versus Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jalandhar and another ...Respondents.

1.

Whether the Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG. PRESENT: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate with Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

By way of instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in not releasing the jewellery seized in 1994 under Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) weighing 543.800 gms as the petitioner has already discharged his liability.

2.

A search and seizure operation was conducted at the business premises and various family members of the petitioner on 9/16.8.1994 under Section 132A of the Act. The cash amounting to ` 34,500/- and entire jewellery of the petitioner weighing 543.800 gms valuing ` 2,39,272/- lying in locker No. 2122 at Punjab National Bank, Sansad Marg, New Delhi was seized on 16.8.1994. The petitioner filed GURBACHAN SINGH 2016.02.25 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh -2- his return on 30.11.1995 for the assessment year 1995-96 declaring income at ` 1,62,750/-. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 16.3.1998 (Annexure P-1) assessed the income at ` 5,88,829/- and the seized cash amount of ` 34,500/- and jewellery valuing ` 2,39,272/- were added as the undisclosed income. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who vide order dated 14.1.1999 (Annexure P-2) deleted both the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Against the order, Annexure P-2, the revenue filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). The Tribunal set aside the order to the file of the Assessing Officer. In pursuance thereto, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 20.9.2005 (Annexure P-3) accepted the surrender of the petitioner subject to no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and assessed the total income at ` 4,02,750/- including surrender and created a demand of ` 1,59,690/-. The Income Tax Officer passed an order under Section 154 of the Act for computing the balance demand in lieu of the final assessment order dated 20.9.2005 (Annexure P-3) by creating an additional demand of ` 57,531/- and sent notice of demand dated 20.12.2005 (Annexure P-4) under Section 156 of the Act. The petitioner paid the said amount vide bank challan dated 27.1.2006 (Annexure P-5). Thereafter, the petitioner sent a letter dated 9.12.2015 (Annexure P-6) to respondent No.1 for release of the jewellery seized during the course of search on 16.8.1994, but no response has been received. Hence, the present writ petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner has sent a letter dated GURBACHAN SINGH 2016.02.25 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh -3- 9.12.2015 (Annexure P-6) to respondent No.1, but no action has so far been taken thereon.

4.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.1 to take a decision on the letter dated 9.12.2015 (Annexure P-6), in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. It is further directed that in case it is found that the petitioner is entitled to the release of jewellery, the same be released to him within next one month in accordance with law. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 23, 2016 (RAJ RAHUL GARG) gbs JUDGE GURBACHAN SINGH 2016.02.25 12:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 132B

All 102 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →