Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - (1.) The petitioners by way of this writ petition seeks quashing and setting aside the order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Income Tax) Circle-1, Jaipur under Section 132 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961') and further pray to direct the respondents to release 583 pieces of jewelry seized by them.
(2.) The brief facts need to be noted are that the petitioner No.2- Anuj Ajmera (hereinafter referred to as 'AA') alongwith two other sales executive of petitioner No.1-Company, allegedly undertook a business tour from New Delhi to Agra for marketing and sale of jewellery products on 17.11.2016 and carried with them 643 items/pieces of jewelry. A search and seizure action was carried out at the Indira Gandhi International Airport on 24.11.2016 whereby AA, the petitioner No.2 was intercepted at the New Delhi Airport by the Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.) Air Intelligence Unit, New Delhi. He was found to be in possession of jewelry weighing around 3 KG gold. He was examined under Section 131(1)A of the Act of 1961 with a view to establish genuineness and source of ownership of gold jewelry i.e Bracelets, ear rings, rings, pendants, cufflinks, bangles, etc. In his statement, AA stated that he is an employee of petitioner No.1- company and the said jewelry is stock-in-trade of the company. In order to verify his statement, the authorities of the Income Tax Department tried to contact the Managing Director of the company but his mobile remained unanswered and as AA could not produce any books of accounts or documentation to explain that it was stock-in-trade of the petitioner No.1, the provisions under Section 132 of the Act of 1961 were invoked and the jewelry was seized.
(3.) It is stated that chartered accountant acting on directions of petitioner No.2 i.e. AA, submitted detailed representation for releasing seized goods and an application under Section 132B of the Act of 1961 on 06.02.2017 alongwith enclosures and documentation to prove that the jewellery which was seized belonged to the petitioner company and the petitioner No.2 i.e. AA was carrying them and the same were part of stock-in-trade of the petitioner No.1. As the goods were not released, the writ petition being No.6359/2017 was preferred before this Court wherein this Court directed the respondents to hear and decide the application filed by both the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of passing of the order i.e. 11.05.2017. Another application is stated to have been preferred by the petitioners with request to release 583 items of jewelry seized by it. The respondent No.4 vide his order dated 19.07.2017 has rejected the applications and has treated the jewelry as not liable to be released. As against the same the present writ petition has been filed.;