https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760772 The HC held that the second proviso to Section 132B mandating release of seized assets within 120 days applies only after the AO determines liability and assesses the nature and source of acquisition. Since the AO had not decided the petitioners' application for release of cash seized from bank lockers, the second proviso was not triggered. The court noted petitioners had disclosed the cash before seizure but rejected automatic release after 120 days. The HC directed authorities to decide the application within four weeks through reasoned order, stating refund with interest must follow if source is satisfactorily explained. en-us Wed, 21 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Mar 2026 15:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760772 The HC held that the second proviso to Section 132B mandating release of seized assets within 120 days applies only after the AO determines liability and assesses the nature and source of acquisition. Since the AO had not decided the petitioners' application for release of cash seized from bank lockers, the second proviso was not triggered. The court noted petitioners had disclosed the cash before seizure but rejected automatic release after 120 days. The HC directed authorities to decide the application within four weeks through reasoned order, stating refund with interest must follow if source is satisfactorily explained. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 21 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760772