Smt. Sarita Chhallani and Mr. Kanishka Prasad, Advocate V. Union of India

W.P.(C)/714/2020

AI Insights

The case involves petitioners Smt. Sarita Chhallani and another, who filed a writ petition against the Union of India and others, concerning the non-release of jewellery seized during a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The jewellery was seized from the petitioners' residence and bank lockers on April 7, 2019. An application for the release of the jewellery was submitted on April 26, 2019, by a family member, which the respondents did not address, leading to the filing of this writ petition. The court found the respondents' inaction unjustified and permitted the petitioners to submit a new application for the release of their jewellery, which the respondents must address promptly.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 700903 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: DEEPAK ANAND
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHIR NANDRAJOG
• Keywords: Exemption; Income Tax Act; Jewellery; Search and seizure; Seized assets; Application for release
• Section: 132; 132B

Judgement Text

"$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 714/2020 SMT. SARITA CHHALLANI & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr.Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with Mr.Kanishka Prasad, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Deepak Anand, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr.Vipul Agarwal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 10.02.2020 C.M. No.2042/2020 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 714/2020 3. Issue notice. Learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice. 4. The primary grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have not released the assets (jewellery) seized from them during the search and seizure conducted on 07.04.2019 at the residence of the petitioners at 03, Maa Durga Nagar, Near Agarwal Nagar, Indore, Madhya Pradesh and bank locker no. 226, Karnataka Bank, Palasia Branch, Indore in exercise of the powers under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The jewellery was seized during the search and seizure operation on 07.04.2019 from the residence of the petitioners. The jewellery from the bank lockers of the two petitioners was also seized. An application under Section 132B of the Income Tax Act dated 26.04.2019 was made by Sh.Lalit Kumar Challani for release of the said jewellery. A perusal of this application shows that it was made in representative capacity on behalf of all the family members, including the petitioners herein. The respondents conveniently chose not to respond to the same which has led to filing of this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent who appears on advance notice submits that the application was made by Sh. Lalit Kumar Challani whereas the jewellery was seized either from the residence, wherein the petitioners and others also resided or from the bank lockers of the two petitioners. He submits that since the application was not made by the petitioners, the same was not actioned. 7. We do not find this to be a reasonable justification for not even responding to the application dated 26.04.2019 made by one of the family members, Sh.Lalit Kumar Challani. Even if, according to the respondents, the application could not be made by Sh.Lalit Kumar Challani and the same ought have been made by two petitioners, the least that the respondents could do was to send the response to the said application. The respondents have however, allowed time to pass by their own omission. Thus, it is not correct for the respondents to turn around and say that the application for release of the jewellery was not made within time. 8. In view of the stand taken by the respondents, we permit the petitioners to move the application for release of jewellery seized during the course of search and seizure as well as from their bank lockers. If and when the application is made, the same should be actioned without any delay in accordance with law. In case the respondents reject the same for any reason whatsoever, the same should be communicated by a reasoned order within a period of four weeks from the date the application is made. 9. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. VIPIN SANGHI, J SANJEEV NARULA, J FEBRUARY 10, 2020 v "