1 3
Page of
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPT No. 27 of 2024
M/s Paras Jewelers, Proprietor Inder Chand Jain, Through Its
Special Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Paras Chand Jain, S/o
Inder Chand Jain, Aged About 50 Years, Having Its Registered
Office At 1, SBI Road, Balaji Ward, Jagdalpur, Bastar (CG)
--- Petitioner
Versus
1. Principal Director Of Income Tax, Investigation, Raipur (C.G.)
2. Additional Director Income Tax, (Investigation Unit 3), Raipur
Branch (C.G.)
3. Deputy Director Of Income Tax (Investigation Unit 3) Raipur
(C.G.)
--- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Amit Choudhari, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order on Board
29/02 /2024
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for
following relief:-
(1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a
writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders quashing the
communication/ order dated 25.01.2024 passed by
respondent No. 2.
(2) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a
writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders directing the
respondents to immediately release the seized items
(jewellaries/ornaments) from the bedroom of Inder Chand
Jain [Locker (G34-G58) and wooden cupboard (G62-
G67)] as the same was part of stock-in-trade.
(3) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any
other relief(s), which is deemed fit and propert in the
aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during
search and seizure, the jewelery which is part of stock-in-trade
cannot be seized and the same was unused. He would further
submit that the petitioner has no other alternative remedy
2 3
Page of
available under the law. To substantiate his submission, he would
refer to the judgment rendered by High Court of Delhi in case of
Khem Chand Mukim reported in (2020) 423 ITR 129. It is
contended that the assessing authority cannot question about
correctness of the search and seizure made by the department,
as such the writ petition is maintainable.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently objecting the
submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner has remedy under Section 132(B)(i) of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 for moving an application before
Jurisdictional Assessing Authority where assessment proceeding
is being conducted, as such the instant writ petition is not
maintainable and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Section
132(B)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable to the
present facts of the case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents place on record.
6. For better understanding, it is expedient for this Court to extract
Section 132(B)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which reads as
under:-
“132B. Application of seized or requisitioned assets.
[Substituted by Act 20 of 2002, Section 57, for Section
132-B (w.e.f. 1.6.2002).]- (1)The assets seized under
section 132 or requisitioned under section 132-A may be
dealt with in the following manner, namely:-(i)the amount
of any existing liability under this Act, the Wealth-tax Act,
1957 (27 of 1957), the Expenditure-tax Act, 1987 (35 of
1987), the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (18 of 1958) and the
Interest-tax Act, 1974 (45 of 1974), and the amount of the
liability determined on completion of the assessment ]
[completion of the assessment or reassessment or
recomputation] [under section 153-A and the assessment
of the year relevant to the previous year in which search
is initiated or requisition is made, or the amount of liability
determined on completion of the assessment under
Chapter XIV-B for the block period, as the case may be ]
[ Substituted by Act 32 of 2003, Section 60, for " under
Chapter XIV-B for the block period" (w.e.f. 1.6.2003).]
[(including any penalty levied or interest payable in
connection with such assessment) and in respect of
3 3
Page of
which such person is in default or is [deemed to be in
default, or the amount of liability arising on an application
made before the Settlement Commission under sub-
section (1) of section 245C, may be recovered out of
such assets] [Substituted by Act 20 of 2002, Section 57,
for Section 132-B (w.e.f. 1.6.2002).]:]
[Provided that where the person concerned makes an
application to the Assessing Officer within thirty days
from the end of the month in which the asset was seized,
for release of asset and the nature and source of
acquisition of any such asset is explained] [ Substituted
by Act 32 of 2003, Section 60, for " Provided that where
the nature and source of acquisition of any such asset is
explained" (w.e.f. 1.6.2003).][to the satisfaction of the
Assessing Officer, the amount of any existing liability
referred to in this clause may be recovered out of such
asset and the remaining portion, if any, of the asset may
be released, with the prior approval of the Chief
Commissioner or Commissioner, to the person from
whose custody the assets were seized:Provided further
that such asset or any portion thereof as is referred to in
the first proviso shall be released within a period of one
hundred and twenty days from the date on which the last
of the authorisations for search under section 132 or for
requisition under section 132-A, as the case may be, was
executed;”
7. From bare perusal of Section 132B(i) of the Income Tax Act,
1961, it is quite vivid that the petitioner can move an application
before the Assessing Officer within thirty days from the end of the
month in which the asset was seized, for release of asset and the
nature and source of acquisition of any such asset is explained
who can with the approval of Chief Commissioner or
Commissioner, to the person from whose custody the assets
were seized can release the assets.
8. Considering the submission and the petitioner has remedy of
approaching the Jurisdictional Assessing Authority for releasing
the writ petition at this juncture is liable to be and is hereby
dismissed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion of merits of the case, it is for the Assessing Authority to
consider and decide it in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Arun