IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 WA.No. 1536 of 2010() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3589/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ SRI.P.M.SATHYAN, PROP.AISWARYA JEWEL CRAFTS, CHERPU P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL), ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV), ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) ERNAKULAM. 4. THE ADDL.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV) ERNAKULAM. 5. THE ASST.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV)-II O/O.THE ADDL.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV)-II, COCHIN. 6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------- W.A No.1536 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. The writ petition was filed for a direction to release the stock of gold seized from the appellant by the Income Tax Department. Learned Single Judge directed adjudication with reference to seizure made. The contention of the appellant is that goods seized are stock- in trade and therefore seizure itself is illegal. 2. However, learned standing counsel submitted that seizure is with respect to unaccounted goods and therefore it cannot be treated as stock-in-trade. The case of the appellant is that a sworn statement was made at the time of search, wherein, appellant claimed ownership of the seized goods. There is no need for us to consider the controversy raised in this matter because assessment has to be completed. at the earliest and the adjudication in our view referred to by the learned Single Judge can only be treated as regular assessment or assessment under W.A No.1536 of 2010 2 Section 153 (A) of the Income Tax Act, whichever is the proposal, i.e. tenable. Appellant is given full freedom to raise all objections including his challenge against seizure before the Assessing Officer. Since learned standing counsel submitted that return for the year 2010-2011 is not filed and the same is also relevant because seizure happens to be in the previous year relevant for the said assessment year, it is for the appellant to file return immediately for the assessment year 2010-2011. We therefore dispose of the writ appeal by directing the concerned authority to complete the assessment or issue any other order that is permissible under the Act within a period of two months from the date on which appellant files return for 2010-2011. Appellant should be given an opportunity to raise objections against all proposals. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE ma W.A No.1536 of 2010 3