Chittewan v. The Assistant Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapifortune Square-2,Vapi Daman Raod, Chala,Vapi, Gujara-396 191

Chittewan IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.953 OF 2023 Kanjibhai Bhagwanbhai TandelAge – 69 years, occ. Business K.K. Marg, Main Road,Opp. UCO Bank,Nani Daman-396 210.PAN : …Petitioner Versus 1.The Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Vapi Circle, VapiFortune Square-2,Vapi Daman Raod, Chala,Vapi, Gujara-396 191 2.The Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Valsad301, Palak Arcade, Shanti Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad,Gujarat-396 001…Respondents *** Mr. K. Gopal a/w Mr. Jitendra Singh i/b Mr. Om Kandalkar for thePetitioner.Mr. Suresh Kumar a/w Mr. Vaibhav Date i/b Ms. Swapna Gokhalefor the Respondents. *** CORAM : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR & ARIF S. DOCTOR, JJ. P.C. DATE : 27 JANUARY 2023 .Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, the matteris taken up for fnal disposal. Chittewan 2 The Petitioner claims that certain jewellery items were seizedduring the search operation conducted in the premises as early ason 18 June 2013. Subsequently, an application for release of thejewellery so seized was made before the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Vapi Circle, Vapi, who, however, claims that it did nothave requisite jurisdiction to decide the matter. He, accordingly,vide a communication 29 July 2013, informed the Deputy Directorof Income Tax (Investigation) Valsad. Subsequently, videcommunication dated 28 November 2016, the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Vapi refused torelease the seized items on the ground that there was anoutstanding demand of Rs.17.39 crores against M/s KrimpiDistillery, in which the Petitioner’s wife Smt. Hansaben K. Tandelwas also a partner. It was, thus, stated that there was an appealpending against the Order dated dated 29 February 2016 as also thepenalty proceedings under Section 271AAB and 271(1)(c) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. It was, thus, stated that the prayer of thePetitioner for release of the jewelry was premature and could not beconsidered at that stage. It was urged that all proceedings, which were otherwisementioned in the communication dated 28 November 2016, have since attained fnality and, therefore, there was no impediment forrelease of the seized items. Reliance is placed upon the Order of heTribunal dated 7 March 2022 passed in the case of M/s KrimpiDistillery. It is stated that the entire demand of Rs.17.39 crores hasbeen deleted by virtue of the Order passed by the tribunal. 3Be that as it may, considering the limited nature ofcontroversy in the present case, we deem it appropriate to disposeof the matter with a direction to the concerned assessing offcer toconsider the prayer of the Petitioner for release of the seized itemsin view of the subsequent development narrated hereinabove,strictly in accordance with the provisions of law. A decision betaken not later than one month from today. Writ Petition isdisposed of accordingly. (ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.) Digitally signed byRAJESHRAJESH VASANTVASANTCHITTEWANCHITTEWANDate: 2023.02.0412:03:37 +0530