Patel Rajesh Kumar Arvind Kumar & ... vs Union Of India And Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 4511 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+      WP(C) 10883/2009

                            Date of Decision:   6th November, 2009



       M/S PATEL RAJESH KUMAR ARVIND KUMAR & ANR.
                                           ..... Petitioners

                             Through     Mr. R.K. Sinha and
                                         Dr. Prabhat Kumar, Advs.

                   versus

       UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                     ...... Respondents

                             Through     Ms. P.L. Bansal with
                                         Ms. Anshul Sharma, Advs.
                                         for Respondent No.1 & 2.
                                         Ms.      Shawana      for
                                         Mr. Salim Ahmed, Adv. for
                                         Respondent No. 3.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL


       1. Whether reporters of local papers may be Allowed to see the
          judgment?
       2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
       3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?



                        JUDGMENT

A.K. SIKRI, J (ORAL):

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the

Petitioners, who claimed to be Angadia (courier), for release of four

gunny bags which were seized from them at Old Delhi Railway

Station. Their case is that the custody of the goods was given to

them by the respective owners and they were to book the same to

Ahmadabad by Ashram Express Train.

2. As per the Respondents, information was received in

the Information Wing on 17th June, 2008 from SHO, Police Station-

Old Delhi Railway Station that they had intercepted three persons

namely Sh. Shanti Lal, Sh. Ukkaji and Sh. Govind on 16th June, 2008

with four gunny bags containing silver/gold jewellery, bricks and

gold biscuits. As per the information the aforesaid three persons

were carrying those four gunny bags for sending them by train to

Ahmadabad through lease holder of brakevan in Ashram Express.

Since they failed to produce the bills/challans/builty of the goods

carried by them, the police authorities took the goods in their

custody and passed on the information to the Investigation Wing of

the Income Tax Department. After the receipt of this information, a

team was sent to Old Delhi Railway Station to verify the facts and

submit the report. Since the said three persons could not produce

bills/challans/builty receipts, prima facie it was found that the

goods remained unexplained and accordingly warrant of

authorization under Section 132A(1) of the Income Tax Act was

issued and goods/cash was requisitioned from SHO, Police Station-

Old Delhi Railway Station vide Panchnama dated 17th June, 2008.

Before taking the delivery of the goods, these were valued by the

Government approved valuer on 17th June, 2008 and thereafter,

SHO handed over goods/documents to the Department.

3. The Petitioners herein requested for handing over the

said items to them on the ground that they were merely couriers. It

is also stated in the writ petition that the employee of the Petitioner

Sh. Govind also attended the office of the Assistant Director

(Investigation) as and when called and produced the books of

accounts and other required documents to show that he was merely

a courier. The names of the persons to whom the goods in fact

belong, were given which are M/s Patel Rajesh Kr. Arvind Kumar,

M/s Yashodra Jewellers and Manoj. According to the Petitioners

even when the receipts and bills relating to the persons to whom

the goods belong were furnished to the Income Tax Department,

the Income Tax Department has not released the goods. It is also

stated that statement of Sh. Govind was recorded on 19th June,

2008 and thereafter no further date of hearing was fixed. In the

circumstances, prayer made in this petition is to direct the

Respondents to release the seized goods.

4. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, after

the seizure of the goods in a manner pointed out above and taking

the delivery thereof on 17th June, 2008, details of various hearings

which took place from time to time are given. It is mentioned that

on 19th June, 2008 Sh. Govind along with the lawyer attended and

stated that the assets seized by the Department pertained to

different parties. They sought adjournment to explain all these

assets. Matter was adjourned to 24th June, 2009 on which date

nobody appeared. However, on the next date i.e. 30th June, 2008

Sh. Govind appeared with his lawyer and produced certain bills and

GRs. These details were found to be incomplete and the matter was

adjourned to 7th July, 2008. On 7th July, 2008 statement of

Sh. Govind was recorded under Section 131 of the Act.

5. Learned counsel for the Respondents has produced the

original record before us which contains the statement of Sh.

Gobind. Perusal of the statement indicates that he mentioned about

some documents which were called for and promised to produce

the same within two-three days. The matter was adjourned to 24th

July, 2008. However, on 24th July, 2008 nobody attended. In these

circumstances, even a letter dated 11th August, 2008 was issued by

the Respondents to the three persons to whom the goods

purportedly belong. Meanwhile, information was sent to the CITs

within whose jurisdiction the said parties fall. On 14th October,

2008 summons under Section 131 of the Act were again issued to

the Petitioner for appearing on 20th October, 2008 as he has not

appeared on previous dates. AR of the petitioner furnished details

and matter was adjourned to 24th October, 2008 for furnishing

further details on that date. However, request was made and the

case was again adjourned to 30th October, 2008. However, on 30th

October, 2008 nobody appeared. It was under these circumstances

that an appraisal report was prepared on 30th October, 2008 and

was sent to the CIT-II and CIT (Central) -I Ahmadabad for further

action where the Petitioner-firm is being assessed.

5. Thus as per the Department the entire record has been

sent to the jurisdictional CITs for further action as per the income

tax law.

6. Section 132B provides the mechanism for application

for requisitioning assets. It is not in dispute that Petitioners are

assessed by the Assessing Officer at Ahmadabad under the charge

of CIT, Ahmadabad-I. Therefore, going by the aforesaid

considerations it would be appropriate for the Petitioners to move

an application before the jurisdictional authority for the release of

the goods. They may move such an application within two weeks

and once such an application is moved the concerned Assessing

Officer shall deal with the same and pass appropriate orders

thereupon within four weeks thereafter, subject to the Petitioners

fully co-operating with the Assessing Officer in this behalf.

7. The writ petition is disposed of with above directions.

A.K. SIKRI, J.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.

NOVEMBER 06, 2009 mk