Writ interference in seized asset proceedings requires a convincing possession explanation; mere delay linked to litigation is insufficient.

Writ interference with proceedings under section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is warranted only where the record shows prima facie harassment or the person concerned offers a reasonable and convincing explanation for possession of the seized assets. The explanation for the seized cash was found unconvincing because the stated sources related to transactions over several years and did not satisfactorily explain custody of the amount at the relevant time. Delay in concluding the matter did not justify quashing, as it was linked to stay orders and pending litigation rather than departmental fault. The writ petition therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proceedings initiated under section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were liable to be quashed in writ jurisdiction on the ground of delay and the petitioner's explanation for possession of the seized cash.

Analysis: Quashing of proceedings under section 132A is justified only where the material on record or the explanation offered by the person concerned shows unnecessary harassment or furnishes a reasonable and convincing basis for possession of the seized assets. The explanation furnished for the cash seized on 23 January 2001 was found unconvincing, since the stated sources related to transactions spread over several years and did not satisfactorily explain custody of the amount at the relevant time. The delay in concluding the matter was also not attributed to any fault of the department, as the proceedings had been stayed or affected by other judicial orders and pending litigation.

Conclusion: The proceedings were not liable to be quashed, and the writ petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under section 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, writ interference is unwarranted unless the record discloses prima facie harassment or a convincing explanation for possession of the seized assets; mere delay, especially when attributable to connected proceedings, does not by itself justify quashing.

---