ARYAMAN VIR vs. ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI AND ANR
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, directing the release of seized movable assets upon compliance with certain conditions. Specifically, petitioners Manit Rastogi and Sonali Rastogi were directed to deposit Rs. 1,25,00,000 each as self-assessment tax/advance tax by January 15, 2026. Upon production of the challan evidencing this deposit, the entire seized jewellery, bullion, and cash/forex (approximately 6.862 Kg gold jewellery & bullion and Rs. 40,00,000 cash/forex) were to be released within seven days. The Court explicitly stated that it had not made any findings or observations on the merits of the assessees' claim that the seized items were duly explained, leaving the parties free to pursue their respective contentions at the appropriate stage. The decision was influenced by the fact that some petitioners were senior citizens or young individuals.
What were the facts?
The petitioners, family members, filed writ petitions seeking the release of movable assets, including gold jewellery, bullion, and cash/forex, seized during a search conducted by the Income Tax Department between December 17, 2024, and December 20, 2024. The Department had not yet finalized proceedings under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The seized items were valued at approximately Rs. 5,95,00,000, with additional cash/forex of about Rs. 40,00,000. One petitioner, Ms. Ananya Vir, is scheduled to get married in March 2026, and the jewellery is required for the occasion. The petitioners offered to furnish solvent security equivalent to the value of the seized articles.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the movable assets seized during the search, including gold jewellery, bullion, and cash/forex, should be released to the petitioners, who claim to have explained these items, given that proceedings under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are not yet finalized? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioners argued that they are regular taxpayers and have explained all seized articles. They highlighted the urgent need for the jewellery for a family wedding and offered to furnish solvent security equal to the value of the seized items. They also contended that any potential tax demand would be significantly less than the value of the seized assets. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent-Department objected to the immediate release and proposed that the petitioners deposit an amount equivalent to their probable tax liability as advance tax or self-assessment tax to protect the revenue's interest in case a demand is raised.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (5 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
W.P.(C) 7448/2025 and connected matters Page 1 of 5 $~13 to 18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %
Date of Decision : 06.01.2026 + W.P.(C) 7448/2025 CM APPL. 41160/2025 KOSHALIYA DEVI RASTOGI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rashi Khanna, Mr. Devansh Jain, Mr. Sohum Dua and Mr. Abhyudaya Bajpyee, Ms. Manvi and Mr. Ghunain Siddiqui, Advs. versus ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSC and Mr. Surya Jindal, Adv. 14 + W.P.(C) 7449/2025 CM APPL. 41156/2025 SONALI RASTOGI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rashi Khanna, Mr. Devansh Jain, Mr. Sohum Dua and Mr. Abhyudaya Bajpyee, Ms. Manvi and Mr. Ghunain Siddiqui, Advs. versus ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSC and Mr. Surya Jindal, Adv. 15 + W.P.(C) 7450/2025 CM APPL. 41193/2025 MANIT RASTOGI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rashi Khanna, Mr. Devansh Jain, Mr. Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:09.01.2026 11:40:17 Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7448/2025 and connected matters Page 2 of 5 Sohum Dua and Mr. Abhyudaya Bajpyee, Ms. Manvi and Mr. Ghunain Siddiqui, Advs. versus ASSISTANT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSC and Mr. Surya Jindal, Adv. 16 + W.P.(C) 7451/2025 CM APPL. 41164/2025 DHIRENDRA VIR RASTOGI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rashi Khanna, Mr. Devansh Jain, Mr. Sohum Dua and Mr. Abhyudaya Bajpyee, Ms. Manvi and Mr. Ghunain Siddiqui, Advs. versus ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSC and Mr. Surya Jindal, Adv. 17 + W.P.(C) 7452/2025 CM APPL. 41199/2025 ARYAMAN VIR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rashi Khanna, Mr. Devansh Jain, Mr. Sohum Dua and Mr. Abhyudaya Bajpyee, Ms. Manvi and Mr. Ghunain Siddiqui, Advs. versus ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:09.01.2026 11:40:17 Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7448/2025 and connected matters Page 3 of 5 Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSC and Mr. Surya Jindal, Adv. 18 + W.P.(C) 7473/2025 CM APPL. 41194/2025 ANANYA VIR
.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rashi Khanna, Mr. Devansh Jain, Mr. Sohum Dua and Mr. Abhyudaya Bajpyee, Ms. Manvi and Mr. Ghunain Siddiqui, Advs. versus ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, NEW DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSC and Mr. Surya Jindal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of present batch of Writ Petitions, the petitioners (who are family members) have prayed that the movable assets, more particularly the gold jewellery, bullion, cash/forex and other valuable articles seized during the course of search conducted at their premises between 17.12.2024 and 20.12.2024 by the respondent-Income Tax Department be directed to be released, as the Department has not even finalized the proceedings under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’). 2. Mr. Sachit Jolly, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:09.01.2026 11:40:17 Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7448/2025 and connected matters Page 4 of 5 the petitioners are assessees and have been furnishing their returns and paying applicable income tax regularly. 3. It was asserted that during the course of search, the Department alleged above referred valuables to be out of the undisclosed income and seized them, though every seized article is explained/explainable. 4. He nevertheless submitted that Ms. Ananya Vir, petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 7473/2025 is getting married in March, 2026, for which the above articles are required as the members of the family have emotional attachment with the jewellery. 5. While praying for release of these articles, he submitted that the petitioners are prepared to furnish solvent security equal to the value of the jewellery and cash, though he argued that the demand, (if raised) qua the above referred seized jewellery, cash and bullion would be much lesser than their value, which even as per the department valuer is about Rs.5,95,00,000/- (apart from the cash/forex amounting to about Rs.40,00,000/-). 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Department, on the other hand objected to the petitioners’ prayer and submitted that the petitioners be directed to deposit an amount equal to the probable tax liability, as advance tax/self-assessment tax for Assessment Year 2025-26 so that in case, any demand is raised, the interest of Revenue remains protected. 7. Though with some reluctance, however on instructions, Mr. Sachit Jolly, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners agreed to the proposal so made by Mr. Gaurav Gupta, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department. He offered that the petitioners namely Sonali Rastogi and Manit Rastogi would deposit Rs.1,25,00,000/- each within a Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:09.01.2026 11:40:17 Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 7448/2025 and connected matters Page 5 of 5 period of ten days, which may be adjusted against the demand, if raised, against the petitioners. 8. In view of the above and considering that some of the petitioners are either senior citizens of more than eighty years of age or children below thirty years of age, we are persuaded to accede to the proposals so made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. The petition is, therefore, allowed by directing as under : (i). The petitioner namely Manit Rastogi (in W.P.(C) 7450/2025) and Sonal Rastogi in (W.P.(C) 7449/2025) shall deposit Rs.1,25,00,000/- each as self- assessment tax/advance tax on or before 15.01.2026. (ii). Upon aforesaid amount being deposited and a copy of the challan produced before the respondent No.1 (Assistant/Deputy Commissioner), entire jewellery, bullion and cash/forex seized (approximately 6.862 Kg gold jewellery & bullion and Rs.40,00,000/- as cash/forex) shall be released within a period of seven days. 10. All the Writ Petitions along with pending applications, stand disposed of, accordingly. 11. Needless to observe that this Court has not recorded any finding or made observation in relation to the merit of the contention of the assessees that the jewellery, bullion and cash/forex are duly explained. The petitioners so also respondent-Department shall be free to take their respective pleas, at appropriate stage. DINESH MEHTA, J VINOD KUMAR, J JANUARY 6, 2026/ss Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:09.01.2026 11:40:17 Signature Not Verified
More judgments on Section 158BC
- Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-3… vs Olive Overseas Private LimitedITA/783/202628 Sept 2026
- Amit Kandhari, Barakar vs DCIT, Central Circle 4(3), KolkataITSSA 51/KOL/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2026AY 2019-2020
- Amit Kandhari, Barakar vs DCIT, Central Circle 4(3), KolakataITA 1402/KOL/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2026AY 2020-2021
- Venad Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kerala vs DCIT, New DelhiITSSA 12/DEL/2011[01/04/1986 to 06/11/1996]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026
- S. Krishna Kumar (HUF) vs DCIT, Central CircleITSSA 325/DEL/2005[1.04.86 to 6.11.96]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Shree Jagannath Associates, Angul vs. The Chief Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, CuttackOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Sampat Raj Jain vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors.Gauhati · 3 Nov 2026
- Sri Hardik Gowda vs. Sri Jayaram PKarnataka · 3 Nov 2026
- Shiv Ram vs. State Of Hp And OrsHimachal Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Ampl Resources PVT. LTD., Through Sri Om Prakash Pareek, Authorised Signatory vs. The State Of JharkhandJharkhand · 3 Nov 2026