The court held that an application for the release of seized assets is valid even if directed to a senior officer, emphasizing the need for timely action by tax authorities to uphold citizen rights.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)

[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

1. The substantive prayers made in the writ petition are as follows:

"(i) Pass and issue an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to release the jewellery and cash seized by the Respondents from the Locker on 03.01.2018;

(ii) Pass and issue an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents and Income Tax Department to decide the appeals in a time-bound manner and expeditiously;"

2. On the previous date i.e., 13.08.2021, we had, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, at great length, captured the contours of the dispute, which arose for consideration, in the instant matter.

2.1. In order to avoid prolixity, and for the sake of convenience, the relevant part of the order dated 13.08.2021 is set forth hereafter:

"2. Apart from anything else, one of the principal arguments raised by Mr. Manish Vashisht, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, is that, once an application for release of jewellery was made, an order had to be passed qua the same, within 120 days from the date on which the last authorisation for search was executed under Section 132 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (in short "the Act").

2.1. This argument is pivoted on the provisions of Section 132B of the Act. In particular, qua the aforementioned argument, Mr. Vashisht lays stress on the provisos appended to clause (i) of sub-section (1) the said provision.

2.2. It is not in dispute that, the search qua the petitioner was triggered on 22.11.2017. It is also not in dispute that, the search memo was drawn up on 03.01.2018.

2.3 Admittedly, the petitioner preferred an application for release of jewellery and cash seized during the course of search and seizure operation, on 09.02.2018; a document which is appended on page 129 of the case file. This application was addressed to the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation)-1. Copy of the said representation was marked to 3 officers:

(i) The Additional Director of Income Tax (Inv.)-Unit-1, Jhandewalan, Delhi

(ii) The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.) Unit-1(1), Jhandewalan, Delhi

(iii) The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Delhi 2.4. As indicated above, admittedly, out of the aforementioned 3 officers to whom the representation dated 09.02.2018 was marked; one of them was The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Delhi. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Assessing Officer (in short `AO'), in the instant case, was Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 14(1). Pertinently, the AO was deployed in the same circle, as the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, who was one among the three recipients, who had been sent copies of the application dated 09.02.2018.

2.5. Concededly, the aforementioned application for release, preferred by the petitioner, has not been actioned by the respondents/revenue. Therefore, according to Mr. Vashisht, the right to claim the release of entire jewellery which is in the custody of the respondents/revenue, has emerged in favour of the petitioner.

2.6. On the other hand, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, says that, the two provisos appended to Section 132B(1)(i) of the Act, have to be read literally, i.e., the application had to be made to the AO, who had to then satisfy himself, as regards the extent of existing liability, and only, thereafter, could an order have been passed one way or the other.

2.7. In other words, it is Mr. Hossain's submissio