TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated, the facts of the case are that an amount of Rs. 34,02,005/- was seized by the respondent from the bank locker belonging to the petitioners. After the seizure, petitioners applied within 30 days explaining their source of acquisition of such assets and prayed for release of money. Petitioners had disclosed to the respondent about the cash in their lockers prior to the seizure vide letters dated 17.01.2023 and 21.08.2023. The seizure took place on 21.09.2023. Petitioners had filed application on 09.10.2023 and 06.11.2023 before the authorities for release of the cash, however, the respondent has not passed any orders on the same. Consequently, the petitioners were forced to file the present writ petition claiming refund of the cash seiz....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct. 4. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on M/s Harish Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Director of Enforcement D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14857/2022 decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 03.01.2024, wherein Division Bench has held that the second proviso to Section 132B of the Act is mandatory in nature and the respondents in that case were directed to pass orders for release of the assets pursuant to the search conducted within four weeks. Counsel has also placed reliance on Mitaben R. Shah Vs. DCIT 2010 (2) TMI 684 (Gujarat High Court), Ashish Jayantilal Sanghavai (Prop. Of M/S Vir Impex) Vs. ITO 2022 (4) TMI 1285 (Gujarat High Court), Khem Chand Mukim Vs. Pr. Director of Income Tax (Inv.) 2020 (1) TMI 1114....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the Assessing Officer within thirty days from the end of the month in which the asset was seized, for release of asset and the nature and source of acquisition of any such asset is explained] to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, the amount of any existing liability referred to in this clause may be recovered out of such asset and the remaining portion, if any, of the asset may be released, with the prior approval of the [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Commissioner, to the person from whose custody the assets were seized: Provided further that such asset or any portion thereof as is referred to in the first proviso shall be released within a period of one hundred and twen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... person from whose custody the assets were seized. Thus, for applying the second proviso, there has to be some satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. This clearly goes to show that once the Assessing Officer has arrived at a satisfaction with regard to the existing liability and with regard to the return of the assets, then the second proviso would apply and the assets or part of the assets as the case may be shall be released within a period of 120 days. Thus, the second proviso is mandatory and the same would come into play only after the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and the determination by him and after approval of the appropriate authorities. 9. In the present case in hand, the application was filed within thirty days before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., it may not be inferred through the process of legal reasoning-that if no order is passed within a period of 120 days, seized assets must be released notwithstanding its impact on the recovery of existing and likely demands. Division Bench of Allahabad High Court has dealt with the judgments given by Gujarat High Court and has not subscribed to the reasoning given by Gujarat High Court and Gauhati High Court. Division Bench of Allahabad High Court held that the provision does not stipulate any consequence of automatic release as the assets would first have to be invoked by the assessee by filing a proper application, then if conditions are fulfilled, an order recording that satisfaction may be passed. It is for that purpose a timeline of 1....