Narender Kumar Sekhri v. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Jalandhar And Another

CWP No. 3635 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 3635 of 2016 Date of Decision: 23.2.2016 Narender Kumar Sekhri Versus ....Petitioner. Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jalandhar and another ...Respondents. 1.Whether the Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?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 theConstitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the action of therespondents in not releasing the jewellery seized in 1994 under Section132B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) weighing 543.800gms as the petitioner has already discharged his liability. 2.A search and seizure operation was conducted at thebusiness premises and various family members of the petitioner on9/16.8.1994 under Section 132A of the Act. The cash amounting to` 34,500/- and entire jewellery of the petitioner weighing 543.800 gmsvaluing ` 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 his return on 30.11.1995 for the assessment year 1995-96 declaringincome at ` 1,62,750/-. The Assessing Officer vide order dated16.3.1998 (Annexure P-1) assessed the income at ` 5,88,829/- and theseized cash amount of ` 34,500/- and jewellery valuing ` 2,39,272/-were added as the undisclosed income. Feeling aggrieved, thepetitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), who vide order dated 14.1.1999 (Annexure P-2) deleted boththe additions made by the Assessing Officer. Against the order,Annexure P-2, the revenue filed an appeal before the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as“the Tribunal”). The Tribunal set aside the order to the file of theAssessing Officer. In pursuance thereto, the Assessing Officer videorder dated 20.9.2005 (Annexure P-3) accepted the surrender of thepetitioner subject to no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act andassessed the total income at ` 4,02,750/- including surrender andcreated a demand of ` 1,59,690/-. The Income Tax Officer passed anorder under Section 154 of the Act for computing the balance demand inlieu of the final assessment order dated 20.9.2005 (Annexure P-3) bycreating an additional demand of ` 57,531/- and sent notice of demanddated 20.12.2005 (Annexure P-4) under Section 156 of the Act. Thepetitioner 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 seizedduring the course of search on 16.8.1994, but no response has beenreceived. Hence, the present writ petition. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for therelief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner has sent a letter dated CWP No. 3635 of 2016 9.12.2015 (Annexure P-6) to respondent No.1, but no action has so farbeen taken thereon. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing thepresent petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of thecase, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.1 totake a decision on the letter dated 9.12.2015 (Annexure P-6), inaccordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording anopportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two monthsfrom the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. It is furtherdirected that in case it is found that the petitioner is entitled to therelease of jewellery, the same be released to him within next one monthin accordance with law. CWP No. 3635 of 2016 9.12.2015 (Annexure P-6) to respondent No.1, but no action has so farbeen taken thereon. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing thepresent petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of thecase, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.1 totake a decision on the letter dated 9.12.2015 (Annexure P-6), inaccordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording anopportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of two monthsfrom the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. It is furtherdirected that in case it is found that the petitioner is entitled to therelease of jewellery, the same be released to him within next one monthin accordance with law. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 23, 2016(RAJ RAHUL GARG) gbs JUDGE