{"id":23438,"date":"2022-01-06T10:54:41","date_gmt":"2022-01-06T05:24:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/harshvardhan-chhajed-v-dgit-inv-2021-438-itr-68-raj-hc\/"},"modified":"2022-01-16T11:32:18","modified_gmt":"2022-01-16T06:02:18","slug":"harshvardhan-chhajed-v-dgit-inv-2021-438-itr-68-raj-hc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/harshvardhan-chhajed-v-dgit-inv-2021-438-itr-68-raj-hc\/","title":{"rendered":"Harshvardhan Chhajed v. DGIT (Inv.) (2021) 438 ITR 68\/ 206 DTR 97\/ 322 CTR 723  (Raj.)(HC)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Allowing the petition the Court held that\u00a0 the seizure\u00a0 was\u00a0 illegal and all consequential actions based on such seizure were illegal and contrary to the provisions of section\u00a0132(1)(iii). The claim for the goods in terms of section\u00a0132(1)(iii)\u00a0had been made by the two firms as the jewellery seized in stock-in-trade and the required material had already been placed before the Income-tax authorities. The jewellery was required to be released as the seizure itself was unjustified and illegal. The petitioners would also be entitled to interest of a sum of Rs. 1 lakh which was paid as a gross amount towards retention of the jewellery which was stock-in-trade and was marketable. Court also observed that the Seizure has to be effected after due care and caution. Merely on account of reasons to suspect, seizure of goods ought not to be undertaken as held in Khem Chand Mukim v. PDIT (Inv) (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.taxlawsonline.com\/%5b2020%5d%20423%20ITR%200129\">2020) 423 ITR 129<\/a>\u00a0(Delhi) (HC)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 132 : Search and Seizure-Power to seize articles-Stock in trade Seizure cannot be made on mere suspicion-Explanation of  assessee  must be  considered-Seizure was held to be illegal-Department was directed to pay interest of Rs. 1 lakh on market value of seizure of stock in trade.  [S. 132(1)(iii), 132(4),  Art. 226]  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23438","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-662","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23438","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23438"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23438\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24091,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23438\/revisions\/24091"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23438"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}