W.P.No.24261 of 2017 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved On 07.02.2020 Pronounced On 12.02.2020 CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.No.24261 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.9645 of 2019 1.Lalithaa Jewellery Mart (P) Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager / Authorised Signatory Mr.Indermal Ramani, 123, Usman Road, Panagal Park, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. 2.BB Jewellers & Manufacturers, Rep. by its Partner Mr.D.Padmanabhan, No. 3-B, Kences, Sundar Flat, No.15/21, Raghaviah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. 3.Chakraborty Jewellers, Rep. by its Partner, Mr. Goutam Chakraborty, No.16, Gopalchandra Bose Lane, Kolkata 700 050. 4.Goutam Chakraborty Petitioners Vs. 1.Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit 3 (2), No. 108, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. 2.Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit 1(3), Aayakar Bhawan Annexe, W.P.No.24261 of 2017 P-13, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata 700 069. 3.The Income Tax Officer, Central Circle I (4), Office of Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 4.Mohanlal Jewellers (P) Ltd., Rep. by its Director Suresh Kumar Khatri, No.139-141 (Old # 68-69), N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai 600 001. 5.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ACIT / DCIT, Circle 44, Kolkatta. (R5 impleaded as per order dated 01.10.2019 in W.M.P.No.4596 of 2019) ...Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for records pertaining to purported search and seizer proceedings Warrant No.8609, dated 1st July 2016 and all purported proceedings initiated thereunder and/or relating thereto and/or in pursuance thereof and quash same including proceedings of Office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, dated 31.12.2018 ACIT/DCIT/Circle-44, Kolkatta passed in Order No.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2018-19/1014678722(1) for Assessment Year 2017-18 in name 4th petitioner and quash same in so far as it relates to Bullion and Jewellery seized vide W.P.No.24261 of 2017 Panchanama 01.07.2016 by 2nd respondent and consequently direct 2nd respondent to release gold bullion and jewellery seized vide Panchanama dated 01.07.2016 by 2nd respondent to custody of 1st petitioner and also to pay interest in accordance with Section 132B of Income Tax Act, 1961. For Petitioners Mr.N.Murali Kumaran for M/s.Mcgan Law Firm. For R1 to R3 & R5 Mr.A.P.Srinivas Special Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.A.Sivakumar ORDER Originally present writ petition was filed for following relief:- To call for records pertaining to purported search and seizure proceedings WARRANT No.8609 dated 1st July, 2016 and all purported proceedings initiated thereunder and/or relating thereto and/or in pursuance thereof and quash same and consequently direct 2nd respondent to release gold bullion and jewellery seized vide Panchanama dated 01.07.2016 by 2nd respondent to custody of 1st petitioner and also to pay interest in accordance with Section 132B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.Since 5th respondent proceeded to pass assessment order dated 31.12.2018 against 4th petitioner during W.P.No.24261 of 2017 pendency of present Writ Petition, petitioners amended prayer in above writ petition for following relief after impleading 5th respondent:- To call for records pertaining to purported search and seizer proceedings Warrant No.8609, dated 1st July 2016 and all purported proceedings initiated thereunder and/or relating thereto and/or in pursuance thereof and quash same including proceedings of Office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, dated 31.12.2018 ACIT/DCIT/Circle-44, Kolkatta passed in Order No.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2018- 19/1014678722(1) for Assessment Year 2017-18 in name 4th petitioner and quash same in so far as it relates to Bullion and Jewellery seized vide Panchanama 01.07.2016 by 2nd respondent and consequently direct 2nd respondent to release gold bullion and jewellery seized vide Panchanama dated 01.07.2016 by 2nd respondent to custody of 1st petitioner and also to pay interest in accordance with Section 132B of Income Tax Act, 1961. Brief facts of case as follows:- 3.About 18043.960 g of fine gold (Bullion) and about 1765.45 g of used gold ornaments ostensibly meant for manufacturing repair and polishing were seized from custody of 4th petitioner in early hours of 01.07.2016, at Netaji Subash Chandra Bose W.P.No.24261 of 2017 International Airport, Kolkata by officers under 2nd respondent. 4.The aforesaid seizure took place when 4th petitioner disembarked from flight from Chennai and was about to leave airport. It appears that on receipt of specific intelligence from officers of 1st respondent at Chennai Kamaraj International Airport, officers of 2nd respondent seized aforesaid quantity of gold from 4th petitioner. 5.The aforesaid seizure was purportedly made by officers under 2nd respondent under Section 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Statement was also recorded from 4th petitioner by 2nd respondent on 01.07.2016. 4th petitioner stated that he was partner of 3rd petitioner and that seized gold in question were handed over to him by 2nd petitioner for manufacturing and polishing/repair purpose and that he had carried gold on earlier occasions also for such purpose from 2nd petitioner. 6.Based on statement recorded from 4th petitioner, 1st respondent also issued summons dated 01.07.2016 and called upon principal officer of 2nd petitioner to explain position. W.P.No.24261 of 2017 On same day, 2nd petitioner also explained background and stated that 2nd petitioner was exclusive manufacturer of gold jewellery for 1st petitioner and that seized quantity of gold was earlier handed over to 2 nd petitioner on 30.6.2016 for manufacturing of jewellery items and for repair & polishing purpose by 1st petitioner and that work was sub-contracted to 3rd petitioner represented by its partner 4th petitioner. 7.As follow-up, summons dated 08.07.2016 was also issued to one Indermal Ramani, Authorised Officer of 1st petitioner to appear and give statement. On same day, another summons was also issued to principal officer of 2nd petitioner. Thereafter, notice under Section 131(1A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to 2nd petitioner. 2nd petitioner once again explained position reiterating what was explained earlier by their reply dated 22.08.2016. 8.Meanwhile, 1st and 2nd petitioners filed separate declaration regarding seized gold bars and jewellery on 01.02.2017 before 2nd respondent. 4th petitioner also filed declaration regarding seized gold with 2nd respondent on 28.02.2017 and stated that 4th respondent had purchased about W.P.No.24261 of 2017 10 Kgs of gold bars (995) on 01.06.2016 and 10 Kgs of gold bars (995) on 30.06.2016 from Bank of Nova Scotia. 9.It was further stated that out of aforesaid quantity, 4th respondent had sold 9 Kgs of gold bars to 1st petitioner on 30.06.2016 and that 10 Kgs of gold were handed over to 1 st petitioner for manufacturing purpose on 30.06.2016. 10.It was further stated that 1st petitioner in turn contracted 2nd petitioner to manufacture jewellery wherein in turn had handed over 18043.960 g of gold bar for manufacturing purpose and 1765.450 g of gold jewellery for repair and polishing purpose. 3rd petitioner represented by 4th petitioner and therefore it cannot be treated as undisclosed income of 4 th petitioner. 11.In course of event, notice under Section 274 read with Section 271 AAB Of Income Tax Act, 1961 was also issued to 4th petitioner stating that pursuant to search that was conducted said petitioner and that he was found to have undisclosed income and therefore 4th petitioner was called for hearing on 30.1.2019 to show cause as to why order imposing W.P.No.24261 of 2017 penalty should not be made under Section 271 AAB of Income Tax Act, 1961. 12.On 31.12.2018 assessment order was passed by 5th respondent for Assessment Year 2017-18 assessing 4th petitioner of undisclosed income of Rs.6,41,92,737/-. 5 th respondent has extracted statements of petitioners and 4th respondent to conclude that 4th respondent had purportedly issued invoice dated 04.07.2016 whereas part of gold in question was seized from possession of 4 th petitioner on 01.07.2016 and therefore sale which has taken place on 04.07.2016 could not form part of gold seized from 4th petitioner. 13.It is further concluded that no regular books of accounts were submitted in links of chain of event from which it could be verified as to who was original purchaser and source of purchase. 5th respondent has not only disbelieved 4th petitioner s claim but also claim of 1 st, 2nd petitioner and 4th respondent herein. 14. 1st respondent has concluded that information furnished by petitioner was inaccurate leading to concealment of W.P.No.24261 of 2017 income. It has been concluded that as per Section 132 (4A) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961, any books of account or other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or thing which are found in possession or control of any person in course of search is presumed to belong to such person. 15.It has been further concluded that as per Section 292C(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 also there is presumption that any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or thing found in possession or control of any person in course of search under Section 132 or Survey under Section 133A belongs to such person. 16.Accordingly seized gold valued at Rs.6,41,92,737/- has been added as undisclosed income of petitioner and therefore 4th petitioner has been asked to pay sum of Rs.6,00,69,834/- as tax apart other amounts. 17.It is contention of petitioners that seized gold belong to 1st petitioner in view of subsequent adjustment between 1st petitioner and 4th respondent on account of seizure of gold. affidavit of parties have been filed. It is further W.P.No.24261 of 2017 submitted that seized gold belong to 1st petitioner and therefore officers of 2nd respondent ought to have returned seized gold to 1st petitioner particularly in light of fact that it has claimed ownership over seized good. 18.It is further submitted that 2nd respondent had no authority under provisions of Section 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961 to seize bullion and jewellery as they were stock in trade of business of petitioners. 2nd respondent was merely bound to make note or inventory of such stock in trade of business and return jewellery items. 19.It is submitted that before actual seizure was effected despite information recorded from both 1st and 2nd petitioners and furnishing of details which clearly established that seized goods were handed over by 1st petitioner to 2nd petitioner who in turn sub-contracted work to 4th petitioner and was given seized gold for purpose of manufacture and polish/repair only. 20.It is therefore submitted that 2nd respondent ought not to have effected seizure and 5th respondent ought not to have W.P.No.24261 of 2017 treated seized gold as formally part of undisclosed income of 4th petitioner. It is submitted that even if respondents had doubts about claim of 1st and 2nd petitioners, seized gold ought to have been sent to jurisdictional Income Tax Officers at Chennai within whose jurisdiction 1st and 2nd petitioners are assessees and their incomes were being regularly assessed. 21.Opposing writ petition, learned counsel for respondents submits that writ petition is without jurisdiction in as much as entire cause of action has arisen Kolkata and therefore outside jurisdiction of this court. He therefore submits that writ petition ought to have been dismissed in limini. 22.In this connection, learned counsel for 1 st to 3rd and 5th respondents relied on decision of Supreme Court and that of this court and in Delhi High Court following cases:- i. Alchemist Ltd. and Another Vs. State bank of Sikkim and Others, (2007) 11 SCC 335. ii. Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others, (2014) 9 SCC 329. iii. Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3162. W.P.No.24261 of 2017 iv. Zeenath International Suppliers Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatinam, 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 564. v. Union of India and Others Vs. Adanai Exports Ltd. and Anothers, (2002) 1 SCC 567. 23.The learned counsel for respondents further submits that assessment order has also been passed by 5th respondent on 31.12.2018 who is located in Kolkata and therefore 4th petitioner has alternate remedy before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 24.It is further submitted that in any event, this court has no jurisdiction to quash aforesaid impugned order of 5th respondent even otherwise. 25.Countering these arguments learned counsel for petitioner relies on decision of Supreme Court in following cases:- i. Rajendran Chingaravelu Vs. R.K.Mishra Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, (2010) 1 SCC 457. ii. LKS Bullion Import & Export Pvt. Ltd. Vs. W.P.No.24261 of 2017 Director General of Income Tax, 2012 SCC OnLine Guj 6350. iii. Vindhya Metal Corporation and Others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, 1983 OnLine All 998. iv. Shri L.R. Gupta and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, 1991 SCC OnLine Del 584. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad and Others Vs. M/s. Vindhya Metal Corporation and Others, (1997) 5 SCC 321. vi. Mrs. Anita Sahai Vs. Director of Income-Tax, 2004 SCC OnLine All 1769. vii.Mitaben R Shah Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, 2010 SCC OnLine Guj 1740. viii.Tejram Omprakash (Huf), Indore Vs. Director of Income Tax (Investigation), 2013 SCC OnLine MP 10794. ix. Mul Chand Malu (HUF) and 3 Others Vs. Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and 5 Others, 2016 SCC OnLine Gau 138. x. Ameeta Mehra Vs. Additional Director of Income Tax (INV)-Unit and Another, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8439. xi. Ajit Jain Vs. Union of India and Others, 2000 SCC OnLine Del 92. xii.Union of India Vs. Ajit Jain and Another, 2003 (260) ITR 80. xiii.Dimondstar Exports and Others Vs. Director W.P.No.24261 of 2017 General of Income Tax (Investigation) and Others, 2004 SCC OnLine Bom 1255. xiv.Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others, 2011 (122) DRJ 693 (FB). xv.Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others, 2011 (124) DRJ 633 (FB). xvi.Vishnu Security Services Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2012 (129) DRJ 661 (DB). xvii.Sonu Sardar Vs. Union of India and Another, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6206. xviii.M/s. Venkata Sai Ram Traders Vs. customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Settlement Commission, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 37515. xix.Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. S.Pichaimanickam Chettiar, 1982 SCC OnLine Mad 257. xx.Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mrugesh Jaykrishna, 1999 SCC OnLine Guj 415. xxi.Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Anoop Jain, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9718, xxii.Firm Kaura mal Bishan Dass Vs. Firm Mathra Dass Atma Ram, Ahmedabad and Others, 1959 SCC OnLine P&H 2. xxiii.Smt. Shakuntala Devi Vs. Banwari Lal and Others, AIR 1977 ALLAHABAD 551(1). xxiv.Ram Narain Singh Vs. Gurinder Kaur and Another, (1997) 116 PLR 1. W.P.No.24261 of 2017 xxv.Arun Batra Vs. M/s. Bimla Devi and Others, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 769. 26. Learned Counsel for Petitioners further submits that expression Unexplained Money is defined in Section 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961. It is submitted that bullion jewellery and etc. could be deemed to be that of 4 th petitioner if only explanation offered by 4th petitioner was unsatisfactory. It is submitted that there is categorical denial regarding ownership by 4th petitioner and since these were part of stock in trade of 1st petitioner, there is no basis to conclude that seized gold bullion/use jewellery were that of 4th petitioner. 27. I have considered arguments advanced on behalf of petitioners and respondents and perused records. 28. Gold bullion and jewellery were seized from custody of 4th petitioner on 01/07/2016. At time of interrogation, by officer of 2nd respondent 4th petitioner had categorically stated that entire consignment of gold/bullion and jewellery were handed over to him by 2 nd petitioner on 30.06.2016 for purpose of manufacture and repair/polishing purpose. W.P.No.24261 of 2017 29.The 4th petitioner has not wavered for his submission whether at time when Panchanama was drawn or at time of seizure or thereafter. Pursuant to statement recorded from 4th petitioner at Netaji Subash Chandra Bose International Airport, Calcutta, summons was also issued to 2 nd petitioner on same date on 01.07.2016 by 1st respondent. 30.The 2nd petitioner has also explained position that it had received 18043.960 gms for manufacturing and 1765.450 gms of old gold jewellery for repair and polishing purpose from 1 st petitioner on 30.06.2016 and that these gold items were handed over to 4th petitioner along with voucher Nos. 98 and 100 dated 30.06.2016. 31.They have also produced stock register of fine gold and gold repairs. Thereafter, summonses were issued on 08.07.2016 to 1st and 2nd petitioners for recording statements. 32.There is no variance between statements of petitioners in proceedings. They have clearly stated that seized gold bullion and jewellery were meant for manufacturing and repair/polishing purpose and were handed over to 4th petitioner W.P.No.24261 of 2017 only for aforesaid purpose. Thus, official respondents can no longer rely on presumption under Section 292C of Income Tax Act, 1961. 5th respondent also cannot deem seized gold as that of 4th petitioner for purpose of Section 69 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 33.Therefore, 2nd respondent was not justified in seizing gold bullion/jewellery from custody of 4th petitioner on 01.07.2016. 5th respondent was also not justified in concluding that seized gold/jewellery was undisclosed income of 4 th petitioner in terms of Section 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961. Only question therefore to be answered is whether this court can exercise jurisdiction and interfere with seizure effected by 2nd respondent at Calcutta on 01.07.2016 and quash consequential assessment order passed by 5th respondent holding explanation offered by 4th petitioner as unsatisfactory to tax as income from undisclosed source? 34.Admittedly, 4th petitioner had carried gold bullion and jewellery from Chennai on 30.06.2016 and seizure was effected by officers of 2nd respondent on 01.07.2016 based on exchange of intelligence/tip off from 1st respondent at Chennai. W.P.No.24261 of 2017 35.The seizure effected by 2nd respondent and consequential assessment order dated 31.12.2018 are intertwined and have their basis from intelligence gathered at Chennai regarding gold being carried from Chennai to Kolkata by 4th petitioner. 36.The 4th petitioner has adequately explained that gold in question were carried by him for manufacturing and repair/polishing purpose for 2nd petitioner. That should have been sufficient ground for 2nd petitioner to send seized gold to 1st respondent for further investigation at Chennai. Instead, 2nd petitioner not only seized gold but also refused to send it to his counterparts at Chennai for further investigation. 37.In fact, summonses were also issued to 1st and 2nd petitioners at Chennai by officers attached to 1st respondent s officer. 1st petitioner has claimed ownership/responsibility over seized gold bullion/jewellery. Therefore, it was imperative for 2nd respondent should have also transferred seized gold for further investigation to his counterparts at Chennai. W.P.No.24261 of 2017 38.Instead 5th respondent has chosen to disbelieve statements of petitioners to conclude that explanation given by 4th petitioner was not satisfactory even though as per 1st proviso to Section 132(1)(c), makes it clear that bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing being stock in trade of business, found as result of search shall not be seized and is authorised officer shall merely make note of inventory of such stock in trade of business. 39.Since investigation and eventual seizure by officers of 2nd respondent was pursuant to tip off from officers of 1st respondent at Chennai Kamaraj International Airport when 4th petitioner was boarding flight in evening to Kolkata on 30.06.2016 carrying gold, 2nd respondent ought to have seized gold and sent it to his counterpart for further investigation. 40.Detention & seizure effected by officers at Kolkata shows arbitrary exercise of power in as much as person claiming to be owners of seized gold bullion and jewellery is admittedly located within State of Tamil Nadu at Chennai and carry on business in retail sale and manufacture of gold jewellery. W.P.No.24261 of 2017 41.If 1st respondent had any doubts regarding ownership, he should have detained 4th petitioner and effected seizure at Chennai Airport before 4th petitioner boarded flight. Instead, after 4th petitioner was airborne to Kolkatta, he informed 2nd respondent. Merely because seizure was effected at Kolkata by itself is not sufficient ground to conclude that this court will have no jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders as basis of seizure itself is on account of tip off/exchange of intelligence by officers located at Chennai Kamaraj International Airport. fact that ownership is claimed by persons located in Chennai, also shows that investigation should have been transferred over to officers in Chennai by 2nd respondent. 42.Further, to exercise power to search and seize under Section 132(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961, officer concerned has to form subjective opinion that gold bullion/jewellery either represents wholly or partly income or property which has not been, or would not be disclosed in return. If seized gold were transferred to 1st respondent, 1st respondent could have scrutinized documents and could have came to fair conclusion on facts. There was no basis for 2nd respondent to conclude W.P.No.24261 of 2017 otherwise to effect seizure from 4th petitioner. Therefore, impugned seizure effected by 2nd respondent is quashed. 43. Further, both under Section 132(4A) and Section 292C(1), there is only presumption. However, such presumptions are rebuttable if adequate explanations are given. Therefore, it was not proper on part of 2nd and 5th respondents to exercise control over seized gold articles to deny rights of 1 st and 2nd petitioners under 1st proviso to Section 132 of Income Tax Act, 1961. In P.R.Metrani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore, (2007) 1 SCC 789, wherein, it was observed that presumption is inference of fact drawn from other known or proved facts. It is rule of law under which courts are authorised to draw particular inference from particular fact. It is of three types, (i) may presume , (ii) shall presume and (iii) conclusive proof . May presume leaves it to discretion of court to make presumption according to circumstances of case. Shall presume leaves no option with court not to make presumption. court is bound to take fact as proved until evidence is given to disprove it. In this sense such presumption is also rebuttable. Conclusive proof gives artificial probative effect by law to certain facts. No evidence is allowed to be W.P.No.24261 of 2017 produced with view to combating that effect. In this sense, this is irrebuttable presumption. 44.The Court further observed as follows:- 24. words in sub-section (4-A) are may be presumed. presumption under sub-section (4-A), therefore, is rebuttable presumption. finding recorded by High Court in impugned judgment that presumption under sub-section (4-A) is irrebuttable presumption insofar as it relates to passing of order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 and rebuttable presumption for purpose of framing regular assessment is not correct. There is nothing either in Section 132 or any other provisions of Act which could warrant such inference or finding. 25. Presumption under sub-section (4-A) would not be available for purpose of framing regular assessment. There is nothing either in Section 132 or any other provision of Act to indicate that presumption provided under Section 132 which is self-contained code for search and seizure and retention of books, etc. can be raised for purposes of framing of regular assessment as well. Wherever legislature intended presumption to continue, it has provided so. Reference may be made to Section 278-D of Act which provides that where during course of any search under Section 132, any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or things or any books of account, etc. are tendered by prosecution in evidence against person concerned, then provisions of sub-section (4-A) of Section 132 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to such assets or books of account or other documents. This clearly spells out intention of legislature W.P.No.24261 of 2017 that wherever legislature intended to continue presumption under sub-section (4- A) of Section 132, it has provided so. It has not been provided that presumption available under Section 132(4-A) would be available for framing regular assessment under Section 143 as well. 26 [Ed.: Para 26 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./17/2007 dated 22-2-2007] . This is also evident from fact that whereas legislature under Section 132(4) has provided that books of account, money, bullion, jewellery and other valuable articles or things and any statement made by such person during examination may thereafter be used as evidence in any other proceedings under Act but has not provided so under sub-section (4-A) of Section 132. It does not provide that presumption under Section 1324-A would be available while framing regular assessment or for that matter under any other proceeding under Act except under Section 378-D. 27. Section 132 being complete code in itself cannot intrude into any other provision of Act. Similarly, other provisions of Act cannot interfere with scheme or working of Section 132 or its provisions. 28. Presumption under Section 132(4-A) is available only in regard to proceedings for search and seizure and for purpose of retaining assets under Section 132(5) and their application under Section 132-B. It is not available for any other proceeding except where it is provided that presumption under Section 132(4-A) would be available. 45.Since 3rd respondent is jurisdictional Income Officer within whose circle 1st and 2nd petitioners are registered as W.P.No.24261 of 2017 income tax assessee, I am of view that seized gold should be directed to be delivered to office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai who may himself decide or nominate senior officer from department to investigate case. 46.The 1st and 2nd petitioners along with 3rd and 4th petitioners and 4th respondent may thereafter file appropriate written submission together with evidence in support of this case before Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or any other senior officer of Income Tax Department who may be nominated by Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai for aforesaid purpose. 47.It is for said officer to conclude as to whether 1st petitioner and/or 4th respondent or both can claim ownership over seized gold bullion and jewellery which was seized from 4th petitioner by 2nd respondent on 01.07.2016. 48.If on further investigation such officer comes to conclusion that explanation offered by 1st and 2nd petitioners along with 4th petitioner and 4th respondent are unsatisfactory, appropriate steps shall be thereafter taken in accordance with law. W.P.No.24261 of 2017 On other hand, if on enquiry it is concluded that 1 st petitioner or 4th respondent are indeed owner of seized gold bullion and jewellery, it shall be handed over to lawful owner or person who is entitled to it. 49.The above exercise shall be carried out within period of three months from date of receipt of copy of this order strictly without any deviation. petitioners shall be given due notice of hearing before order is passed. 50.As far as impugned order dated 31.12.2018 passed by 5th respondent is concerned, liberty is given to 4th petitioner to take appropriate steps against said order before jurisdictional Appellate Commissioner within period of thirty days from date of receipt of copy of this order. 51.The petition stands disposed with above directions. No cost. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 12.02.2020 Index Yes/No Internet Yes/No jen W.P.No.24261 of 2017 C.SARAVANAN, J. Jen To 1.Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit 3 (2), No. 108, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. 2.Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit 1(3), Aayakar Bhawan Annexe, P-13, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata 700 069. 3.The Income Tax Officer, Central Circle I (4), Office of Income Tax Department, Ayakar Bhavan, M.G.Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 4.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ACIT / DCIT, Circle 44, Kolkatta. Pre-Delivery Order in W.P.No.24261 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.9645 of 2019 12.02.2020 Lalithaa Jewellery Mart (P) Ltd./BB Jewellers & Manufacturers/Chakraborty Jewellers/Goutam Chakraborty v. Dy.Director of IT (Investigation),Chennai/Dy.Director of IT (Investigation),Kolkata/The ITO,Central Circle-I(4),Chennai/Mohanlal Jewellers (P)Ltd./T