https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214191 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. en-us Tue, 05 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214191 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214191