Shrikrishan P. Jindal Huf & Anr v. The Income Tax Officer & Ors
High Court
29 Jan 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Shrikrishan P. Jindal Huf & Anr v. The Income Tax Officer & Ors
Date of order
29 Jan 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Shrikrishan P. Jindal Huf & Anr v. The Income Tax Officer & Ors, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
(-1-)
MGN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL, CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2601 OF 2007
Shrikrishan P. Jindal HUF & Anr...Petitioners
Vs.
The Income Tax Officer & Ors. ..Respondents
Mr. J.D. Mistry with Mr. Jitendra Jain and Ricat
Chand i/b.D.S.K. Legal for the petitioners
Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for the Respondent.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&R.S.MOHITE,JJ.DATED: 29TH JANUARY,2008
CORAM: F.I.
R.S.MOHITE,JJ.
DATED: 29TH JANUARY,2008
P.C.:
P.C.:
. Rule. Heard forthwith.
2. A search was carried out in the premises of
Petitioner No.2. In the course of the search a
locker belonging to petitioner No.1 was also
searched and from there various items were seized.
Most of the items seized have been released except 3
items which are as described at page 45 of this
petition. They are described as:-
1. Ring
2. Tops
3. Necklace
It is the case of the petitioner No.2 that these
(-2-)
have been returned in the Wealth Tax returned of
Petitioner No.1 and they have been so accepted for
the last several years.
3. On the other hand on behalf of the
Respondents their learned Counsel submits that there
are apparent discrepancies and in these
circumstances the said items of jewellery have been
taken in possession and is subject to the
proceedings under the Act.
4. Various contentions were raised as to the
power to decide the applications for release of the
gold ornaments. After hearing the parties in our
opinion the issue can be disposed of by issuing the
following directions to Respondent No.4 and
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central I, Mumbai:-
(i) The Items 1 and 2 at page 45 be released
without any security, but will be subject to any
order that may be passed. The petitioners to file
an undertaking that they will not dispose of the two
items during the pendency of the proceedings and if
the order be adverse for a period of four weeks from
the order of block assessment in the hands of
Petitioner No.2.
(ii) In so far as item No.3 is concerned, the
(-3-)
petitioner No.1 to furnish a bank guarantee in the
sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs in favour of C.I.T. Central
I, who on furnishing such guarantee shall release
the Necklace in favour of the petitioner No.1. The
petitioner No.1 to keep the bank guarantee alive for
a period of four weeks from the order of block
assessment of petitioner No.2.
(iii) Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as
to costs.
(R.S.MOHITE, J.)
(R.S.MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
(R.S.MOHITE, J.)
(F.I.REBELLO, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.