- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant and also the learned Counsel for the respondent.
(2.) THESE two appeals are directed against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants -revenue were dismissed and the orders passed by the Incometax Settlement Commission directing release of the seized ornaments/jewellery to the respective assessees were upheld. In the first case, such order was passed by the Settlement Commission on 13/12/2005 in a matter arising out of the proceedings under Section 245D(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
(3.) THE contention of Shri Anuroop Singhi, learned Counsel for the revenue is that in the first case, even the the estimated disclosed income according to the appellant was Rs. 92 lacs, whereas the respondent -assessee admitted the income of only Rs. 12 lacs and, therefore, at the premature stage, jewellery/ornaments could not be ordered to be released.;