Petitioner entitled to release of seized assets due to no outstanding demands post compliance with the tax settlement scheme.

JUDGMENT :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh for the petitioner has tendered the draft amendment. The same is allowed in terms of the draft. To be carried out forthwith.

2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta for the respondents.

3. This Court passed the following order on 07.08.2025:-

“Heard learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi K. Parikh for the petitioner through video conference and learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili D. Mehta for the respondents.

It was submitted by learned advocate Ms. Parikh that inspite of repeated reminders and requests, the respondents are not releasing the gold ornaments weighing 475.20 grams and books of accounts though there is no outstanding liability of income tax to be paid by the petitioner.

Learned advocate Ms. Parikh referred to the chronology of events which have taken place and pointed out that in the year 2022 under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, the petitioner has made payment of outstanding tax and the order giving effect was passed by the respondent on 29th June, 2022 accepting such payment.

Learned advocate Ms. Parikh also invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 28th April, 2025 passed under the Right to Information Act wherein it is stated as under :

“3. It is submitted that in the case of Shri Dharmeshkumar Gautamkumar Sutaria (PAN: AKUPS3619R), from perusal of online systems, it is observed that, no demand is outstanding. Further, in this case, no proceedings i.e. Assessment, Penalty and Prosecution is pending with the office of the undersigned. In this case, it is also observed that the PAN of the assessee has been received by transfer on 23.06.2017. Copy of PAN History attached. No case records are received and found in this office. No any approval of retention is accorded by the office of the undersigned.”

It was therefore, submitted that the respondent authorities are sitting tight over the matters by not releasing the gold ornaments and the books of accounts which were seized in the year 1994.

Considering the above submissions, issue notice for final disposal returnable on 1st September, 2025.

Direct service through email is permitted.

To be listed on top of the Board.”

4. The brief facts of the case are as under :

4.1. The petitioner is an individual as well as Karta of the HUF. The petitioner being Karta of HUF is a partner in two partnership firms namely, M/s. Angan Enterprise and M/s. Akruti Land Developers and Organizers. The search took place on 10.08.1994 and 05.10.1994 under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short “the Act”) at the premises of the petitioner as HUF at the same place in connection with both the partnership firms.

4.2. During the course of search, ornaments of the family of the petitioner were seized from the residential premises. A demand was raised in the case of both the partnership firms for the Assessment Years 1993-94 to 1995-96 and assessment was framed by the concerned Assessing Officer by order dated 31.03.1997 and order dated 26.03.1998 against which appeals were preferred by the assessee and the CIT (Appeals) by order dated 18.11.1998 and order dated 08.10.2003 upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer.

4.3 Against the orders passed by the CIT (Appeals), appeals were preferred before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal who set aside the orders and remanded the matter back to the CIT (Appeals) by orders dated 22.09.2006 and 18.10.2006. During the pendency of the appeals before the CIT (Appeals) after the remand of the matter by the Tribunal, the petitioner in both the firms decided to settle the pending appeals under the Direc