Get expert tax tips, GST updates & compliance guides delivered to your inbox.
🔒 No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
In a strongly worded judgment dated 04 February 2025, the Bombay High Court exposed the shocking failure of the Income Tax Department and the Bank of Maharashtra to return seized jewellery worth ₹56 lakhs to an 88-year-old legal heir, Hiralal H. Malu. The jewe…
In a strongly worded judgment dated 04 February 2025, the Bombay High Court exposed the shocking failure of the Income Tax Department and the Bank of Maharashtra to return seized jewellery worth ₹56 lakhs to an 88-year-old legal heir, Hiralal H. Malu. The jewellery had been seized from his deceased wife, Mrs. Shakuntala Hiralal Malu, during tax raids in 2005.
Despite a formal order issued in 2018 to release the jewellery, six years passed without compliance. The court described the conduct of both institutions as “profoundly insensitive” and called for immediate accountability, financial restitution, and reform in governance standards.
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Hiralal H. Malu v. Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.) & Ors. |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Bench | Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain |
| Date of Judgment | 04 February 2025 |
| Seized Articles | Gold & diamond jewellery (net weight: 727.39g) |
| Value Estimated (2025 rates) | ₹56,00,000 |
| Seizure Date | 22 July 2005 |
| Legal Heir's Representation Began | September 2017 |
| Official Order for Release | 11 April 2018 (Under Section 132B, Income Tax Act) |
| Problem | Jewellery cannot be traced; each institution blaming the other |
| Issue | Court’s Observation |
|---|---|
| Jewellery seized in 2005 was not returned despite 2018 release order | Clear violation of taxpayer’s rights. Order was never enforced. |
| Bank of Maharashtra claimed “articles could not be identified” | Utter failure in locker security; contradicts their responsibility under Supreme Court’s ruling in Amitabha Dasgupta case |
| Income Tax Dept claimed it was the bank’s fault | Department failed in its trustee responsibility to safeguard citizens' property. |
| Both entities refused to take responsibility, blamed each other | Blame-shifting without accountability; disrespectful to rule of law and to the petitioner. |
| Petitioner, aged 88, received no relief despite repeated follow-ups | Grave injustice. Elderly citizen was made to suffer due to bureaucratic indifference. |
| Concern | Implication |
|---|---|
| Delay in returning seized assets | Undermines public trust in legal and financial systems |
| Elderly citizens left helpless | Violation of Article 21 (Right to life and dignity) |
| Institutions escaping responsibility | Sets a dangerous precedent if left unpunished |
| Banking security standards questioned | Indicates loopholes in locker safety and record management |
| Judicial intervention required for basics | Shows a system breakdown if courts are needed for compliance with already-issued orders |
Q1. What was the jewellery worth?
Based on conservative 2025 gold prices, about ₹56 lakhs, excluding sentimental value.
Q2. Who is responsible for the loss?
The Court said either the Tax Department or Bank of Maharashtra—or both—must compensate the legal heir.
Q3. What was the bank's defense?
The bank said it had no “privity of contract” with the heir and couldn’t find the articles in the locker.
Q4. Why didn’t the Income Tax Department act sooner?
Despite issuing a release order in 2018, the department failed to enforce it or escalate the matter when the bank delayed.
Q5. What’s next?
Court will hear the matter on 11 February 2025. Both institutions must file affidavits and respond under oath.
This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is based on the Bombay High Court judgment dated 04 February 2025 in Hiralal H. Malu v. DDIT (Inv.) & Ors.. For any specific legal issue, consult a qualified professional. The author and this site disclaim all liability for actions taken based on this post.
This article is published by TaxQue (ARB FinTech LLP) for general informational, educational, and business guidance purposes only. Tax laws, GST rules, MCA circulars, and judicial precedents are subject to frequent statutory revisions. This content does not constitute formal individualized tax, accounting, or legal counsel.
Comments are moderated. Only English and Hindi comments from verified Indian users are published.
Company Master Data is a treasure trove of information about companies registered in India, maintained by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA). Whether you’re an investor, busin…
Understanding the GST registration limit special state wise is crucial for businesses in India to comply with the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime, effective since July 1, 2017.…
Nidhi company compliances are mandatory for Nidhi companies, which are non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) registered under Section 406 of the Companies Act, 2013, to promote t…
From company registration and GST filings to annual MCA audits and tax planning, TaxQue provides complete consulting solutions for startups and enterprises.
