S. 132B : Application of seized or requisitioned assets-Search and Seizure-Jewellery-Release of seized assets-Strictures-Accountability- Jewellery seized in the year 2005-Not released to the assessee even after 25 years – Loss of seized jewellery from the Bank locker-Legal heir entitled to return of jewellery-Income tax department and Bank held liable to compensate-Interim relief granted-The Court emphasized the importance of fair tax governance and proper security measures in Nationalized Banks and Scheduled the matter for further hearing on February 11-Copy of the order is forwarded to the Chairman CBDT and the Chairperson and Managing Director of Bank of Maharashtra. [S. 132, Art. 226]
In July 2005, the premises of the assessee, Late Mrs. Shakuntala Hiralal Malu, were searched by the Income Tax Department, and jewellery weighing 901.98 grams (net weight 727.39 grams) valued at Rs. 7,56,640/- was seized. Upon the conclusion of the proceedings, it was found that no tax was payable, and some refunds were due to the assessee. In 2016, the assessee passed away. The petitioner, her husband and legal representative, wrote to the tax department in 2017, requesting the return of the seized jewellery.
In April 2018, an order under Section 132B was passed directing the release of the jewellery. However, despite repeated follow-ups by the petitioner, the jewellery was not returned. In 2020, it came to light that the jewellery was deposited in a bank locker with the Bank of Maharashtra, but the bank claimed that the jewellery could not be traced. The Income tax Department and the Bank blamed each other for the loss, offering no relief to the petitioner. Aggrieved, Writ was filed by the petitioner. The Honourable Court held that there was no dispute regarding the petitioner’s entitlement to the jewellery and noted that both the Tax Department and the Bank failed in their duty. Estimating the current value of the seized jewellery at Rs. 56,00,000/-, the Court held both the IT authorities and the bank jointly liable to compensate the petitioner for this amount. The court emphasized the importance of fair tax governance and proper security measures in nationalized banks and scheduled the matter for further hearing on February 11, 2025. The court emphasized the importance of fair tax governance and proper security measures in nationalized banks and scheduled the matter for further hearing on February 11, 2025. Copy of the order is forwarded to the Chairman CBDT and the Chairperson and Managing Director of Bank of Maharashtra (WP No. 8026/2022, dt. 04-02-2025)
Hiralal H. Malu, Legal Heir of Late Mrs. Shakuntala Hiralal Malu v. DDIT (Inv) (Bom)(HC)www.itatonline.org
[Coram : Hon’ble Shri Justice M.S. Sonak & Hon’ble Shri Justice Jitendra Jain]