Mrs. K.Hymavathi, vs. The Income Tax Officer

PDF · subscribers
WP/5367/2023HC TelanganaHBHC01006481202324 January 2024Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad, in its order dated January 24, 2024, noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause in the instant writ petition had become infructuous and nothing further remained to be adjudicated. Recording this submission, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous. No specific finding was made on the merits of the petitioners' claim regarding the legality of the seizure or the retention of the jewellery. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as infructuous, with no order as to costs. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Mrs. K. Hymavathi and Mrs. K. Prathibha, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. They sought a writ of mandamus or other appropriate direction to declare the action of the Income Tax respondents in not releasing gold jewellery seized from their residence as arbitrary and illegal. The seizure occurred during a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on December 19, 2014, and February 13, 2015. Despite numerous requests, the jewellery remained unreleased. The petitioners contended that the respondents' inaction violated principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India. The respondents included various Income Tax officers and authorities at Hyderabad and Bangalore.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the action of the respondents in not releasing the gold jewellery seized from the petitioners' residence, despite numerous requests, is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India? Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that the continued retention of their gold jewellery, seized during proceedings under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without proper justification or release, was illegal and violated fundamental rights. They sought a direction for the immediate release of the seized items. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the revenue respondents. The proceedings concluded based on a submission from the petitioner's counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[ 337e ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION NO: 5367 OF 2023 Between: 'l . Mrs- K.Hymavathi, W/o Mr. K.Satyanarayana, Aged 74 years, Occ.. Housewife, No 8-2-703141P, Road No. '12, Baniara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034, Telangana 2. Mrs. K.Prathibha, Wo Mr. K.Pratap, Aged 50 years, Occ.- Business, RJo 8-2- 703l4lP, Road No.. 12, Banlara Hills, Hyderabad - 500 034, Telangana. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The lncome Tax Ofiicer, (lnvestigation), Unit - ll, Hyderabad, o/o the Director of lncome Tax (lnvestigation), Aayakar Bhavan, LB Stadium Road. Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. 2. The Director of lncome Tax, (lnvestigation), Aayakar Bhavan, LB Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. 3- The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle - 6, Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. 4. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Hyderabad, Room No.. 922, gth Floor, B Block, lT Towers, 10-2- 3, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. 5. The Director General of Income, Tax (lnvestigation), CR Buildings, Queens Road, Bangalore - 560 001, Kamataka. 6. The Deputy Director of lncome Tax, (lnvestigation), Unit 2(1), CR Buildings Annexe, Queens Road, Bangalore - 560 001 , Karnataka. 7. The Asst. Commissionerof lncome Tax, Central Circle 1(2), lll Floor, CR Buildings, Queens Road, Bangalore - 560 001, Karnataka. ...RESPONDENTS Petition uMer Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, declaring the action of the Respondents in not releasing the gold jewellery. pertaining to the Petitioners, seized from their residence, during the course of a search uls 132 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, on 19.12.2014 and l ; i I I I

il I I I ,, l I :l! 1 I I I i I I I I 13.02.2015, despite numerous requests, as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14 and 265 of the constitution of lndia, and consequenfly direct the Respondents to release the gold jewellery seized during the proceedings dated 13.o2.2o1s, in the interests of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J.V.PRASAD, SC FOR !T The Court made the following: ORDER

TIIE IION,BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM NOSIrY AND w.P.Ivo.536 'ble Si Justice P.S,AIW KOSH4) to f2023 the Iearned lnstant writ nothing further remains to be ORDER:Ir,er rron pettdon has become adjudicated. THE g9g5"E SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Today, when the matter is hken up for hearing, counsel for the petitioner submits that the cause in the infructuous artd 2 Recording, the above made petrtion is dismissed as infructuous. //TRUE COPY// submission, the present writ No order as to costs. shall 3. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed. SD ASSISTANT /.V.KAVITHA R GIST AR To I 2 3 PSK. GJP SECTION OFFICER pff Eg is 3fl f ,yA-xyt{t+'l8?fl ffIi"d;" topucl

HIGH COURT DATED:24 tO1l2O24 ORDER WP.No'5367 of 2023 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION aS ir.rrnucruous wlrHour cosrs' -.a:::" fr .-'i:. 1.) ,: ''- ir ) ,1 r.t i ^ .,.., -.)l ,l i,,r i i.ll't t14' , )4 ii w

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →