Patna High Court
Sardar Santosh Singh vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 August, 1991
Equivalent citations: [1992]196ITR595(PATNA)
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. There is no dispute that, on May 25, 1990, at the time of search of the residential house of the petitioner, the key of locker No. 33 in the Punjab National Bank, of which the petitioner was the hirer, was also taken away by the Income-tax Department. There is no dispute again that, on May 25, 1990, the petitioner had made a statement in which he had, inter alia, stated that some jewellery in that locker belonged to Smt. Pritpal Kaur, his daughter-in-law. There is also no dispute that on August 16, 1990, the locker was opened and an inventory was prepared.
3. On November 23, 1990, when the locker was again opened, the petitioner and his daughter-in-law, Smt. Pritpal Kaur, were present. But after some time, the petitioner went out in protest against the respondents' proposal for delivering the jewellery to Smt. Pritpal Kaur, which belonged to her.
4. It was submitted by Mr. Moitra on behalf of the petitioner that, notwithstanding the statement made by the petitioner on May 25, 1990, that part of the jewellery belonged to Pritpal Kaur, there is no provision under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act under which part of the jewellery belonging to her could have been handed over to her. According to the petitioner, procedures prescribed under Sections 112 and 132(5) of the Act should have been followed.
5. We have already noticed that the petitioner had admitted that part of the jewellery belonged to Smt. Pritpal Kaur, his daughter-in-law. He, however, in this application, has sought to explain that because of mental tension, he had made the statement in a hurry. It has been stated in the writ petition that the jewellery belonged to his family.
6. Even if there has been any irregularity committed by the Department in returning the jewellery to Smt. Pritpal Kaur, still in view of the petitioner's statement recorded on May 25, 1990, and in view of the fact that the lady, namely, Smt. Pritpal Kaur, is his daughter-in-law, we are not inclined to interfere with the action taken by the respondents.
7. This application is dismissed.