Case Law Details
Praveenbhai Girdharilal Agarwal Vs PCIT (Gujarat High Court)
Gujarat High Court held that since the order passed by the Appellate Authority has attained finality and no demand is outstanding against the appellant, it is unjustified to withhold the seized gold. Accordingly, directed to release the remaining gold at the earlier.
Facts- During the course of search and seizure, carried out u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, a parcel containing gold, weighing total 720.34 grams, was intercepted and seized by Respondent No.4 on 27.10.2017. The assessment proceedings were carried out, u/s. 153C of the Act, where, Respondent No.3 added the value of the seized gold of the petitioner, weighing 720.34 grams, i.e. Rs.21,79,813/-, to the total income of the petitioner, treating the same to be as an unaccounted investment.
CIT(A) deleted the addition made by Respondent No.3. Pursuant thereto the Respondent No.3 passed the order dated 07.04.2021, giving effect to the order of the Appellate Authority dated 25.02.2021, by raising NIL demand.
It is the case of the petitioner that, since, there was no demand outstanding qua the petitioner either under the provisions of Section 132B(1)(i) of the Act or any other provisions of the Act, he made a request, vide letter dated 20.04.2021, to Respondent No.1 to release the seized gold, weighing 720.34 grams. It appears that, subsequently, out of the total seized gold, the gold, weighing 619.99 grams, came to be released in favour of the petitioner. However, the remaining seized gold, weighing 100.350 grams, continued to be withheld by the concerned Respondent-authorities.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
