Rajiv Rai Rupal Rai Ritika Raisanjana Rai v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.10.2016 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.Nos.31301 to 31304 of 2016 Rajiv Rai Rupal Rai Ritika RaiSanjana Rai .. Petitioner in W.P.No.31301 of 2016 .. Petitioner in W.P.No.31302 of 2016 .. Petitioner in W.P.No.31303 of 2016 .. Petitioner in W.P.No.31304 of 2016 Versus 1.Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2(3), 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai -600 034. 2.Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2,121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai -600 034. 3.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-18, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai -600 034. .. Respondents in all W.Ps., W.P.No.31301, 31304 of 2016: These Writ Petitions are filedunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for aWrit of Mandamus to direct the first respondent and secondrespondent to consider and grant the release of the jewelleryseized in October, 2012 forthwith; W.P.No.31302/16:Petition filed Under Article 226 of theconstitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the1st respondent and 2nd respondents to consider and grant therelease of the seized assets being jewellery seized in October2012 forthwith direct the 3rd respondent to consider anddispose of the appeals filed by the petitioner. W.P.No.31303 of 2016: filed Under Article 226 of theconstitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the1st respondent and 2nd respondents to consider and grant therelease of the seized assets being jewellery and cash seized inOctober 2012 forthwith direct the 3rd respondent to consider https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and dispose of the appeals filed by the petitioner expeditiouslyand pass such further or other order. For Petitioner : Ms.A.Sushma Harini For Respondents : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan Heard Ms.A.Sushma Harini learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Standingcounsel appearing for the respondents and with the consent ofeither side, the writ petitions themselves are taken up forfinal disposal. 2. In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners sought fora direction upon respondents 1 and 2 to consider and grantrelease of their jewellery which was seized during October 2012.The petitioner in W.P.No.31301 of 2016, is the husband of thepetitioner in W.P.No.31302 of 2016, father of the petitioner inW.P.No.31303 of 2016 and daughter-in-law of the petitioner. For Petitioner : Ms.A.Sushma Harini For Respondents : Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan Heard Ms.A.Sushma Harini learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Standingcounsel appearing for the respondents and with the consent ofeither side, the writ petitions themselves are taken up forfinal disposal. 2. In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners sought fora direction upon respondents 1 and 2 to consider and grantrelease of their jewellery which was seized during October 2012.The petitioner in W.P.No.31301 of 2016, is the husband of thepetitioner in W.P.No.31302 of 2016, father of the petitioner inW.P.No.31303 of 2016 and daughter-in-law of the petitioner. 3. A search and seizure operation was conducted by therespondent Department on 31.10.2012, in the names of variousindividuals and business entities as well as in the residentialpremises. Warrants were issued under Section 132 of the Act inthe joint names of the petitioner, who formed the constituentsof the same family. In the course of the search, jewellerybelonging to the assessees were seized and detained by thedepartment. The petitioners' case is that pursuant to thesearch of the business premises, assessments were framed onvarious individuals and business and are pending in appealbefore the Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) and thatthey have been repeatedly requesting for the release of thejewellery and have also deputed their authorised representativeto personally meet the concerned officials on several occasions.In this regard, written representations were also given to therespondent on 19.12.2012, and 25.03.2015. It is submitted thatthe assessee Mrs.Prema Raj, is no more, as she passed away on29.08.2015. The petitioner Mr.Rajiv Rai, and his two sisters,are her legal heirs. The last of such representation was madeon 25.06.2016 before the first respondent stating that theseizure and retention of the jewellery is wholly contrary to lawand requested for release of the same and the jewellery seizedand retained are of sentimental value to the petitioners, sincethey constitute family and heirloom jewellery and the assesseeshave been deprived of the same for all their family functions,festivals and occasions. With these facts, the petitioners havecome before this Court. 4. Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Standing counselappearing for the respondents submitted that it is not known asto what is the stage of the proceedings before the appellateauthority and in any event, the request made by the petitionerbefore the first respondent being pending, this Court may issueappropriate direction to the first respondent to consider suchrequest on merits and in accordance with law. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructionswould submit that the petitioner would be satisfied for thepresent, if the Court directs the first respondent to considerthe petitioners' representation, dated 23.05.2016, for releaseof the seized jewellery. 6. In the light of the above, there will be a direction tothe first respondent to consider the petitioners' representationdated 23.05.2016, for return of the seized jewellery on meritsand in accordance with law and pass a speaking order andcommunicate the same to the petitioner within a period of eightweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. So far as the request made by the petitioner to directthe Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-18, to dispose of theappeals as expeditiously as possible, this Court is not inclinedto issue any direction at this juncture. However, it is open tothe petitioner to move the Commissioner of Appeals and convincehim about the urgency. In the result, the Writ Petitions are disposed of on theabove terms. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(J) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 7. So far as the request made by the petitioner to directthe Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-18, to dispose of theappeals as expeditiously as possible, this Court is not inclinedto issue any direction at this juncture. However, it is open tothe petitioner to move the Commissioner of Appeals and convincehim about the urgency. In the result, the Writ Petitions are disposed of on theabove terms. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(J) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2(3), 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai -600 034. 2.Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2,121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai -600 034. 3.Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-18, 121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai -600 034. +1cc to M/S.Sushma Harini, Advocate sr.60667 +1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate sr.60515 W.P.Nos.31301 to 31304 of 2016 vd[co]srg 05/12/2016