C.S.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) THE Petitioners are two ladies. One is the wife of Sri Laxmi Chandra Gupta and the other is the widow of late Shyam Lal. The first petitioners is the daughter of Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal. The second petitioner is the sister-in-law of Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal. Petitioner No. 1 had come to the residence of Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal in connection with a marriage, while petitioner No. 2 is alleged to be permanently residing with Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal, as she a widow and there was no one to look after her at her father in law's place.
(2.) ON the 5th Aug., 1975, a search was conducted at the residence of Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal, Munni Lal Jaiswal, Vijai Shankar Jaiswal, Heare Lal Jaiswal and Suresh Chandra Jaiswal. A Large number of ornaments, cash and faxed deposit receipts were seized in the search. The petitioners filed the present petition challenging the seizure of certain bank accounts, fixed deposit receipts and ornaments as they clamed them to be theirs. After the petition was admitted, the ITO passed an order under S. 132(5) of the IT Act treating the various properties seized as belonging to the firm Messrs. Jamuna Prasad Munni Lal. It has not been disputed that before passing the impugned orders, the petitioners were not heard and neither the objections which they had preferred were considered. From the observation made in the case of Director of Inspection of Income-tax (Investigation) New Delhi & Anr. vs. Pooran Mall & Sons & Anr (1974) 96 ITR 390 : 1976 CTR (All) 25, it appears that third parties are to be afforded an opportunity to substantiate their claim, where they claim the property seized to be theirs.
(3.) WE accordingly set aside the impugned order of the ITO and direct that the matter should be decided afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to substantiate their objections. We further direct the CIT, Lucknow to have the matter tried and decided by another ITO at Deoria other than the one who passed the impugned order, and those who have sworn the counter-affidavit in the case. In case no such officer is available at Deoria, he should assign an ITO to hear the case at Deoria. The petitioners are entitled to their costs. The ITO concerned should decide the case within a period of three months from the date of the communication of this order to the CIT, Lucknow.;