Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the petition. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 20.07.2015 as at Annexure N to the petition in following factual background.

2. The petitioner, on 24.03.2014, was travelling from Morbi to Rajkot carrying cash of Rs. 20,07,000/-. According to him, he had to handover such cash to his friend Manoj P. Rajdev. The vehicle, in which, the petitioner was travelling, was intercepted by the police authorities being the election period for general election to the parliament. The police authorities, after being satisfied that the cash, which the petitioner was carrying, had no connection with the ensuing election, informed the Income Tax Department which, later on 25.03.2014 seized the cash from the petitioner. The case of the petitioner, as reflecting from the present petition is that, the cash belonged to said Shri Manoj P. Rajdev and not to the petitioner. However, since the same was seized from the petitioner, the petitioner filed a petition dated 14.04.2014 before the authority for releasing the cash which was filed on 17.04.2014. Under communication dated 12.09.2014, the petitioner reminded to the respondent authority that the petition was still pending. On 13.07.2015, the petitioner once again applied to the respondent for release of cash citing the decision of this Court in case of Mitaben R. Shah v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. reported in 331 ITR 424. Finally, on 20.07.2015, the respondent authority rejected the application of the petitioner inter alia on the grounds that cash can be released only when the source is explained to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The petitioner failed to satisfy this requirement. Assessment under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was still pending. The final assessment of the tax and penalty liabilities is still not completed. Only after the completion of such proceedings, question of release of seized asset can be considered. The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the petitioner that such decision should have been taken within the time envisaged under further proviso to Clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 132B of the Act. The judgement of this Court in case of Mitaben R. Shah v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and anr. (supra) was distinguished. Decision in case of Jinkal Dineshbhai Virvadiya v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 367 ITR 713 was cited, in which, when it was found that the petitioner failed to satisfy the authority about the source of the asset, rejection of the request for release of the same was upheld.

3. It is this order of the authority, the petitioner has challenged on multiple grounds. However, we have focused the petitioner's ground of statutory time limit provided in sub-section (1) of Section 132B of the Act. In that view of the matter, we do not intend to go into the disputed question whether the petitioner was able to satisfy the source of the asset.

4. Relevant facts may be re-stated. On 25.03.2014, the Income Tax department seized the cash which was found by the police authority on 24.03.2014 in the hands of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for release of such cash under petition dated 14.04.2014 which was filed on 17.04.2014. Despite reminders, such application came to be decided by the respondent only on 20.07.2015.

5. In this context, we may peruse the statutory provisions. Section 132B of the Act pertains to application of seized or requisitioned assets and reads as under:

"[Application of seized or requisitioned assets:

132B. (1) The assets seized under section 132 or requisitioned under section132A may be dealt with in the following manner, namely:--

(i) the amount of any existing liability under this Act, the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), the Expenditure-tax Act, 1987 (35 of 1987), the Gift-tax Act, 1958 (18 of 1958) and the Interest-tax Act, 1974 (45 of 1974), and the amount of the liabi