Court affirms denial of seized cash release, stresses swift investigation under Section 132B.

The court upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to reject the petitioner's application for the release of seized cash under Section 132B, emphasizing the ongoing investigation into the ownership of the cash. The court stressed the importance of expeditiously concluding the investigation by revenue authorities to determine the ownership and tax implications of the cash. The writ petition was dismissed, with expectations for the timely completion of the inquiry as per the Act.

---

---

Issues: Seizure of cash under Section 132A, application for release of seized cash under Section 132B, contention regarding ownership of cash, rejection of application for release, pending investigation by revenue authorities.

Seizure of Cash under Section 132A:
The petitioner, a cash management services provider, had &8377; 1,18,87,490 seized from their van by the Election Squad and Police in Chennai. The cash was subsequently transferred to the Assessing Officer in New Delhi under Section 132A. The petitioner claimed the cash belonged to 11 clients of the Royal Bank of Scotland and was to be deposited in the bank.

Application for Release of Seized Cash under Section 132B:
The petitioner filed an application under the first proviso of Section 132B for the release of the seized cash, stating they had already paid the equivalent amount to the Royal Bank of Scotland. They argued that the cash did not belong to them but to the 11 different parties, as detailed in Annexure-A.

Contention Regarding Ownership of Cash:
The petitioner maintained that the cash seized was not their undisclosed income but belonged to the 11 parties. They sought the release of the cash based on the provisions of Section 132B, which allow for the release of assets if the nature and source of acquisition are explained to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer.

Rejection of Application for Release:
The Assessing Officer rejected the petitioner's application for release, citing the ongoing investigation into the ownership and source of the seized cash. The court declined to interfere with this decision, stating that directing release at this stage would be premature and could prejudge the outcome of the investigation.

Pending Investigation by Revenue Authorities:
The court emphasized the need for the revenue authorities to conduct the investigation expeditiously and reach a conclusion regarding the ownership and tax implications of the seized cash. The writ petition was dismissed with the expectation that the inquiry would be completed within the specified time frame as per the Act.

---