The Delhi High Court has asked the Assessing Officer to appear and explain the reasons as to why the seized amount and jewellery had not been returned to the assessee even after the passage of 13 years. The High Court held that the approach adopted by the Department and officers reflected an attitude of high-handedness and red-tapism.

The High Court was considering a matter where the seized amount of Rs 32,50,000 in cash and jewellery worth Rs 23,16,146 were still retained by the Department.

The Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held, “We cannot refrain from observing that such approach adopted by the Department and officers reflects an attitude of high handedness and red tapism. In the present era, when one expects honesty and uprightness from the assessees and the tax payers, the least what is expected from the officers is, that they do what is enjoined upon them to do in timely manner.”

Senior Advocate Sachit Jolly represented the Petitioner while Senior Standing Counsel Indruj Singh Rai represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner claimed that no demand was due against him and still an amount of Rs 9,96,150 and the jewellery which was valued at Rs 23,16,146 way back in the year 2010 was still lying seized with the respondent. The case as set up by the petitioner was that the Assessing Officer, who vide an assessment order had adjusted a sum of Rs 22,53,850 against the petitioner’s demand of Assessment Year 2011-12, leaving a sum of Rs 9,96,150 refundable to the petitioner, was asking the petitioner to deposit the demand with applicable up-to-date interest whereafter he would refund the amount of Rs 32,50,000.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the counsel for the respondent failed to give any satisfactory reply as to how and why the Department had been sitting tight over the matter for years together.

The Bench held that such an approach reflected an attitude of high-handedness.

Listing the matter today, the Bench ordered, “The concerned Assessing Officer shall remain present on the next date of hearing to explain the reasons for which the needful has not been done for 13 years.”

Cause Title: Shally Thapar V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Case No.: W.P.(C) 10592/2026)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sachit Jolly, Advocates Arjun Syal, Rohit Kumar, Sahib Kochhar, Abhyudaya Shankar Bajpai, Sohum Dua

Respondent: Senior Standing Counsel Indruj Singh Rai, Advocate Sanjeev Menon, Junior Standing Counsels Rahul Singh, Priya Sarkar, Advocates Gaurav Kumar, Prateek Bhati

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Dinesh MehtaJustice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.