IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2861 of 2023 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

JIGISHABEN MINESH PATEL Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, VADODARA & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR TUSHAR HEMANI SENIOR ADVOCATE with MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 KARAN G SANGHANI(7945) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 01/12/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. Since a very short issue is involved, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. RULE. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan G. Sanghani for the respondents waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.

3. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking release of her seized jewellery during the course of search carried out on 02.12.2015 under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) at the business and residential premises of the petitioner. Despite the fact that the entire demand in relation to addition made in respect of the alleged unexplained jewellery has already been paid.

Facts of the Case

4. A search action under Section 132 of the Act was carried out in Bipinchandra Patel Group of cases including the petitioner on 02.12.2015. During the course of search gold, diamond jewellery worth Rs.1,53,35,538/- were found belonging to the petitioner and her family members. Out of such jewellery and valuables, the department had seized certain jewellery and valuables (gold weighing 3473.700 grms and diamond weighing 6.97 carat) worth Rs. 87,85,338/-. Pursuant to the search, proceedings under Section 153(A) of the Act were initiated. Eventually, the assessment for the assessment year 2016-17 was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act, vide order dated 29.12.2017, whereby the then Assessing Officer held that an addition of Rs.1,03,86,88/- was required to be made on account of unexplained investment in jewellery and such addition was to be made case of the petitioner and “Manjuben B. Patel, the mother-in-law of the petitioner. However, no person wise or item wise bifurcation was provided to the department. Therefore, out of the total sum of Rs.1,03,86,888/-, 50% i.e. (Rs.51,93,444/- ) was added on substantive basis and the balance 50% (Rs.51,93,444/-) was made on protective basis in the hands of the petitioner. Accordingly, a total addition of Rs.1,03,86,888/- was made in the hands of the petitioner. A similar addition was also made in the hands of Manjuben Patel vide order dated 29.12.2017 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act.

4.1 An appeal was preferred against the Assessment Order dated 29.12.2017, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for short ‘CIT(A)’], who, vide order dated 07.01.2019 enhanced the addition made in respect of unexplained jewellery and issued certain directions to the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the Assessing Officer passed the appeal effect order dated 11.03.2019, whereby the addition in respect of unexplained jewellery, as per the directions of the CIT(A), was quantified at Rs. 1,04,83,953/-.

4.2 The petitioner, by way of letters dated 20.03.2019 and 28.03.2019 addressed to the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax respectively, for the release of jewellery seized during the course of the search proceedings. The petitioner, vide letter dated 07.08.2020, addressed to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Surat (for short ‘PCIT’), requested the said authority to issue appropriate directions for the release of the jewellery in question. The petitioner, v