- (1.) The case of the petitioner-Assessee is that in a search conducted on 14.12.2000, various documents, cash, jewellery etc. were seized. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment order dated 27.12.2002 and the same was challenged before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Kota [hereinafter 'CIT (Appeals)'] whereupon vide order dated 14.02.2005, the appeal of the petitioner-Assessee came to be partially allowed. The respondent-Income Tax Department challenged the order dated 14.02.2005 passed by the CIT (Appeal) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') and the Tribunal vide order dated 07.11.2006 dismissed the appeal of the Department. Counsel for the petitioner-Assessee submits that as per the final assessment made under Section 158 BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1961') for the block period of 1990 to 2000 under orders detailed above, the petitioner-Assessee has discharged all his liabilities and yet the amount to an extent of Rs.38,625/- in excess of the petitioner's liability after discharge of all dues of the Department and various other assets seized remain to be in the custody of the Department without legal foundation and just cause.
(2.) It is submitted that the petitioner-Assessee moved an application before the Commissioner Income Tax, Kota for release of the assets seized in the course of search conducted on 14.12.2000 in view of no outstanding liability to the Department, but vide order dated 13.03.2009, the application was dismissed merely on the ground that a further appeal against the order dated 07.11.2006 passed by the Income Tax Tribunal was pending before this Court under Section 260 A of the Act 1961 consequent to which the assets could not be released by the Department. Counsel submits that there is no interim order passed by this Court to take away the operating consequences of the order dated 07.11.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
(3.) Counsel for the respondent-Department could not controvert the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner-Assesse on facts as it is admitted that no liability of the petitioner-Assesse to the Income Tax Department under the Act of 1961 is pending. Counsel however submits that in view of the pendency of the appeal under Section 260A of the Act of 1961 before this Court against the order dated 07.11.2006, passed by the Tribunal, there is a potential liability against the petitioner-Assessee.;