THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

ORDER:

Ms. Himangini Sanghi, learned counsel appears for petitioner.

Sri Srinarayan Toshniwal, learned counsel appears for Sri N. Praveen Reddy, learned counsel for Income-tax, for respondents.

2. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or Direction declaring the inaction of Respondents in not following the due process of law and not releasing the seized cash on 21.09.2024 and not considering the application filed by the Petitioner u/s 132B of the Income Tax Act dated 08.10.2025 is totally illegal, arbitrary and is in complete violation of my rights conferred under Article 14, 19g, 265 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.1 to 3 to release the cash seized amounting to Rs.65,00,000/- along with interest in the interests of justice.”

3. Under the first proviso to Section 132B(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), an application is to be made by the person concerned to the Assessing Officer within thirty (30) days from the end of the month in which the asset was seized, for release of the asset and the nature and source of acquisition of any such asset is to be explained to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, who upon consideration may release any portion of the asset with the prior approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to the person from whose custody the assets were seized after ascertaining of any existing liability referred to in the said clause to be recovered out of such asset. The second proviso provides that such asset or any portion thereof referred to in the first proviso shall be released within 120 days from the date on which the last of the authorizations for search under Section 132 or for requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, was executed.

4. In the present case, the search was conducted on 21.09.2024 but the petitioner made an application for release of the seized cash, on 08.10.2025, much after thirty (30) days of the said seizure. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the respondents have not released the cash seized on 21.09.2024 in teeth of Section 132B of the Act.

5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that panchanama in relation to the search conducted on 23.09.2024 in the residential and business premises of the petitioner has also not been furnished to the petitioner.

6. However, the petitioner has not impleaded the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) in the array of respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in order to seek release of the seized cash, the petitioner ought to have made an application within thirty (30) days of such seizure which he has not made. Therefore, the alleged infraction of the provisions of Section 132B of the Act is not made out by the petitioner. However, since the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) concerned has not been impleaded, he is not in a position to say whether any direction to release the seized cash has been issued or not.

8. In the facts and circumstances noted above, this Court is of the view that so far as release of assets pursuant to the seizure is concerned, the petitioner has not made any application as stated under the first proviso to Section 132B of the Act. Therefore, the allegation that the respondents had not released the seized cash within 120 days is misplaced. However, so far as furnishing the panchanama to the petitioner is concerned, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Officer concerned seeking to furnish the same. Since the Officer concerned has not been made a party, this Court is restrained in issuing specific direction in that regard.

Th