Full Judgment Text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 10.01.2025
+ W.P.(C) 10960/2016 CM APPL. 42872/2016 CM APPL.
47923/2018 CM APPL. 35408/2023
GAUTAM THADANI ..... Petitioner
versus
DIRECTOR INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)
AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ved Jain, Mr. Nischay Kantoor and Ms.
Soniya Dodeja, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC, Mr. Sanjeev
Menon, JSC, Mr. Rahul Singh, JSC and Mr.
Anmol Jagga, Advocate for Revenue
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP with Ms. Mishika
Pandita and Mohd. Changez Khan, Advocates
for CBI.
CORAM
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to
respondent no.2/Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) to handover an amount of ₹98,00,000/- which was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.01.2025
19:29:33
W.P.(C) No.10960/2016 Page 1 of 17
seized from the petitioner on 20.10.2012. The petitioner also impugns
an order dated 05.09.2016 (hereafter the impugned requisition ) passed
under Section 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act )
and further proceedings pursuant to the impugned requisition.
Additionally, the petitioner also impugns a notice dated 08.10.2018
issued under Section 153A of the Act and notice dated 05.11.2018
issued under Section 142(1) of the Act in respect of the assessment
years (AY) 2011-12 to 2016-17.
2. The petitioner had not impugned the notice issued under Section
153A of the Act in the petition as initially filed as the said notice was
issued after the present petition was filed.
3. The petitioner contends that there was possibly no reason to
believe that the petitioner’s income had escaped assessment and
therefore the impugned requisition was issued without authority of law.
F ACTUAL C ONTEXT
4. A search was conducted in the premises of the petitioner by CBI
on 20.10.2012 in connection with R.C. No.AC-I/2012A/0014. The said
case was registered in connection with an alleged bribe offered to
General V.K. Singh in connection with procurement of High Mobility
Vehicles for the defence forces. The concerned authority believed that
the petitioner was also involved in the said matter.
5. During the search proceedings, the currency amounting to
₹98,00,000/- along with certain other documents were found in the
premises of the petitioner and the same was seized by CBI.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.01.2025
19:29:33
W.P.(C) No.10960/2016 Page 2 of 17
6. The petitioner’s statement was recorded by the CBI on
22.10.2012 and he claimed that the seized cash belong to M/s Global
Healthline Pvt. Ltd. – a company of which he was a Director. The
explanation offered by the petitioner was not found plausible by the
CBI. The Superintendent, CBI sent a letter dated 02.01.2013 to the
office of Director General (Investigation) of the Income Tax
Department informing the said authority regarding seizure of cash of
₹98,00,000/- recovered from the petitioner’s residence.
7. The Income Tax Department states that the said information was
forwarded internally to the Director of Income Tax (Investigation)-1 on
10.01.2013 and was thereafter, forwarded to the Investigation Wing
(IO) on 15.01.2013. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that
the information forwarded by CBI was not complete and therefore, the
Superintendent of CBI was requested to provide further information
along with copy of chargesheet as well as search and seizure list. The
concerned Income Tax Authority also issued summons dated
02.05.2014 to the petitioner to produce the relevant documents. This
was followed by another summon issued to the petitioner seeking his
explanation in regard to the seized funds.
8. The petitioner responded, by a letter dated 07.07.2014, stating
that the final findings of CBI were awaited.
9. It is affirmed that the Income Tax Department became aware that
CBI had filed a chargesheet against some of the accused persons in the
year 2016. The department was also informed by a letter dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.01.2025
19:29:33
W.P.(C) No.10960/2016 Page 3 of 17
07.04.2016 issued by the CBI that the petitioner had moved the Court
for release of the funds seized from his premises.
10. In the aforesaid context, the department sent a letter dated
08.07.2016 requesting CBI not to release the amount seized till the
investigation was completed.
11. On 19.08.2016, the petitioner filed an application before the
learned Special Judge, CBI for release of the amount seized by CBI.
CBI in its response dated 24.08.2016 to the said application, inter alia,
stated that it did not intend to pursue the case further and did not require
to retain the seized funds, however, the matter was under investigation
by the Income Tax Department.
12. Thereafter, on 05.09.2016, the concerned Income Tax Authority
(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) issued warrant of
authorization under Section 132A(1)(c) of the Act to the Superintendent
of Police, CBI for handing over the seized documents and cash to the
Requisitioning Officer.
13. The learned Special Judge, CBI passed an order dated 01.10.2016
rejecting the petitioner’s request for release of the seized funds on the
ground that the impugned requisition had been issued under Section
132A of the Act by the Income Tax Department.
14. It is stated that CBI handed over the seized cash of ₹98,00,000/-
to the Requisitioning Officer on 15.12.2016.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.01.2025
19:29:33
W.P.(C) No.10960/2016 Page 4 of 17
15. On 11.07.2018, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under
Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment of petitioner’s
income for the AY 2013-14. However, thereafter, Income Tax
Department took a corrective course and stated that perusal of the
details indicated that the impugned requisition had been executed on
15.12.2016 and therefore, the petitioner’s assessment was required to
be completed under Section 153A of the Act and not under Section 148
of the Act. Accordingly, the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act
were dropped by an order dated 08.10.2018 and notice under Section
153A of the Act was issued for the relevant AYs on 08.10.2018.
16. In view of the above, this court permitted the petitioner to amend
the writ petition.
S UBMISSIONS
17. Mr. Ved Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
advanced submissions on, essentially, three fronts. First, he submitted
that the impugned requisition was inordinately delayed as the Income
Tax Department was fully aware of the seizure of the cash in the year
2012. He contended that the department was informed regarding seizure
of the cash on 02.01.2013 and therefore could not form a basis. Second,
he contended that the investigation had been completed and no
chargesheet had been filed against the petitioner. Further, the petitioner
had also explained the source of the seized cash and therefore, there was
no reason to issue the impugned requisition under Section 132A of the
Act. Lastly, he contended that the time for making an assessment under
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.01.2025
19:29:33
W.P.(C) No.10960/2016 Page 5 of 17
Section 153A of the Act has expired and therefore, the cash as
requisitioned is liable to be released to the petitioner. He had also relied
on the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Gauri Shankar &
Ors. v. Director of Income Tax, Neutral Citation: 2016:DHC:3810-
DB, in support of his contention that there was no justification for
withholding the seized cash.
EASONS AND ONCLUSION
R C
18. The first and foremost question to be addressed is whether there
was any delay in issuing the impugned requisition and if so, the effect
thereof. Undisputedly, the information regarding seizure of the funds in
question was received by the Income Tax Department on 02.01.2013.
However, at the material time, CBI was conducting its investigation.
According to the Income Tax Department, summons was issued to the
petitioner under Section 131(1A) of the Act. Before the Investigation
Wing, the petitioner claimed that a sum of ₹52,70,000/- seized were on
account of cash sales of M/s Global Healthline Pvt. Ltd., which was in
his possession. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that cash of
₹18,50,000/- was received by him from one Mr. Vinay Sharma as
advance for sale of his motor vehicle (Porche Car). However, the said
transaction was subsequently cancelled as the buyer did not pay the
balance amount of ₹8,00,000/-.
19. The Income Tax Department also issued notices under Section
131 of the Act to M/s Global Healthline Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Vinay Sharma
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.01.2025
19:29:33
W.P.(C) No.10960/2016 Page 6 of 17
but the same were returned unserved. It was reported that Mr. Vinay
Sharma had expired on 10.03.2016.
20. Additionally, the Income Tax Department also examined the
income tax returns filed by the petitioner for the previous years and
found that the petitioner’s return of income during the AYs 2010-11
and 2011-12 were also negligible (₹15,843/- for AY 2010-11 and
₹29,103/- for AY 2011-12) and did not reconcile with his possession of
huge amount of cash.
21. It is after conducting the investigation that the concerned Income
Tax Officer (ITO) drew up a note seeking warrant of authorization
under Section 132A(1)(c) of the Act. The said note is reproduced below:
“ CBI case No. RC ACI 2012 A 0014 against Lt. Gen (Retd.)
Tejinder Singh
In this case information was received from the Supretendent Of
Police CBI, AC-1. New Delhi vide File No.06 dated 02.01.2013
where it was communicated that “A Criminal Case No. RC AC1
2012 A 0014 has been registered on 19.10.2012 u/s 12 of PC Act
1988 against Lt. Gen (Reld.) Tejinder Singh on the allegation of
offering a bribe of Rs.14 crores to Genl. V.K. Singh, The then
COAS, to clear the file for procurement of 1676 HMVs (High
Mobility Vehicles), including Tatra Vehicles.” During the
searches conducted at the premises of accused/suspect persons,
cash amounting to Rs. 98 Lacs was recovered and seized from
the residence of Sh Gautam Thandani, C-31 Mayfair Garden,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi, which he could not satisfactorily
account for.
On the basis of information received by this office. Summons
were issued to Sh. Gautam Thadani to explain the source to
Rs.98 Lakh found and seized during the CBI search on
19.10.2012. As per to reply furnished by Sh. Gautam Thandani.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.01.2025
19:29:33
W.P.(C) No.10960/2016 Page 7 of 17
he is managing director of Global Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. which is
engaged in the business of running retail pharmaceutical shops.
The company had 23 retail outlets in Delhi and Gurgaon and
amounting to Rs. Rs. 52,70,000/- which forming part of Rs.
98,00,000/- (seized cash) was the cash sale proceeds of such
pharmaceutical shops and kept with him.
Another Rs. 18.50 lacs was advance against sale of his Porche
Car No. DL3C AY 4326 and the said amount was received in
cash by him on different dates:-
03.09.2012 Rs. 3.50 Lacs
05.10.2012 Rs. 5.00 Lacs
12.10.2012 Rs. 10.00 Lacs
This amount could not be deposited by him in his bank account
as he was travelling out of India and was not in India from 15th
to 17th October 2012. Subsequently the deal was cancelled and
the said amount is refunded to Vinay Sharma the said buyer
through RTGS.
Balance Rs. 30.00 lacs approx was received by him as advance
against sale of one of the shops belonging to M/s Global
Influence situated at 103 Central Aarcade, Gurgaon received on
14.10.2012 through a real estate broker Mr. Dhanraj in Cash. Mr.
Dhanraj unfortunately expired on 01.01.2013 and the deal could
not be completed. In the said circumstances the amount of Rs.
30.00 lacs was declared as his income in the return for
assessment year 2013-14.
However, no supporting documents have been furnished by Sh.
Gautam Thandani till date in support of his claim. Hence it can
be concluded satisfactorily that the cash found and seized in the
CBI Search on 19.10.2012 is the unaccounted income of Sh.
Gautam Thandani. In view of the above, it is requested that the
warrant of authorization under sub section (b) of section 132A
of the Income tax Act, 1961 may be issued.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.01.2025
19:29:33
W.P.(C) No.10960/2016 Page 8 of 17
22. The concerned authorities examined the said request and on
05.09.2016 recorded their satisfaction that it was a fit case for issuance
of warrants of authorization under Section 132A(1)(c) of the Act. The
impugned requisition was issued thereafter. It is apparent from the
above that there has been some delay in issuance of the impugned
requisition, however, the Income Tax Department has explained that the
said delay was on account of investigations conducted by it. In the given
circumstances, we are unable to accept that the impugned requisition is
liable to be rejected on the ground of delay.
23. The second question to be examined is whether the impugned
requisition is liable to be set aside on the ground that there was no
reason to believe that the cash seized could not be disclosed by the
petitioner. It is relevant to refer to Section 132A of the Act. The same
is set out below:
“Powers to requisition books of account, etc.
132A. (1) Where the Principal Director General or Director
General or Principal Director or Director or the Principal Chief
Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal
Commissioner or Commissioner, in consequence of
information in his possession, has reason to believe that—
(a) any person to whom a summons under sub-section (1)
of section 37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of
1922), or under sub-section (1) of section 131 of this
Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of
the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section
(1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or
cause to be produced, any books of account or other
documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to
be produced, such books of account or other documents,
as required by such summons or notice and the said
books of account or other documents have been taken
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.01.2025
19:29:33
W.P.(C) No.10960/2016 Page 9 of 17
into custody by any officer or authority under any other
law for the time being in force, or
(b) any books of account or other documents will be useful
for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Indian
Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act
and any person to whom a summons or notice as
aforesaid has been or might be issued will not, or would
not, produce or cause to be produced, such books of
account or other documents on the return of such books
of account or other documents by any officer or
authority by whom or which such books of account or
other documents have been taken into custody under any
other law for the time being in force, or
(c) any assets represent either wholly or partly income or
property which has not been, or would not have been,
disclosed for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act,
1922 (11 of 1922), or this Act by any person from whose
possession or control such assets have been taken into
custody by any officer or authority under any other law
for the time being in force,
then, the Principal Director General or Director General or
Principal Director or Director or the Principal Chief
Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal
Commissioner or Commissioner may authorise any Additional
Director, Additional Commissioner, Joint Director, Joint
Commissioner, Assistant Director or Deputy Director,
Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Income-
tax Officer [hereafter in this section and in sub-section (2) of
section 278D referred to as the requisitioning officer] to require
the officer or authority referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or
clause (c) , as the case may be, to deliver such books of account,
other documents or assets to the requisitioning officer.
Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared
that the reason to believe, as recorded by the income-tax
authority under this sub-section, shall not be disclosed to any
person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal.
(2) On a requisition being made under sub-section (1) , the
officer or authority referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or
clause (c) , as the case may be, of that sub-section shall deliver
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.01.2025
19:29:33
W.P.(C) No.10960/2016 Page 10 of 17
the books of account, other documents or assets to the
requisitioning officer either forthwith or when such officer or
authority is of the opinion that it is no longer necessary to retain
the same in his or its custody.
(3) Where any books of account, other documents or assets
have been delivered to the requisitioning officer, the provisions
of sub-sections (4A) to (14) (both inclusive) of section 132 and
section 132B shall, so far as may be, apply as if such books of
account, other documents or assets had been seized under sub-
section (1) of section 132 by the requisitioning officer from the
custody of the person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or
clause (c) , as the case may be, of sub-section (1) of this section
and as if for the words “the authorised officer” occurring in any
of the aforesaid sub-sections (4A) to (14) , the words “the
requisitioning officer” were substituted.”
24. The concerned authority had sought authorization under Section
132A(1)(c) of the Act.
25. A plain reading of Section 132A of the Act indicates that the
concerned authority can issue a requisition under the said section if the
said authority, as a consequence of information in his possession, has
reason to believe that any asset represents either wholly or partly
income or property which has not been, or would not have been,
disclosed for the purposes of the Act. Thus, the question whether the
cash seized from the petitioner was undisclosed is required to be
considered in the light of the explanation as provided by the petitioner.
26. According to the Income Tax Department, on 22.10.2012, the
petitioner made a statement before the CBI to the effect that the entire
cash belonged to a retail company (M/s Global Healthline Pvt. Ltd.) of
which he was a director. The petitioner claimed that the said cash was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.01.2025
19:29:33
W.P.(C) No.10960/2016 Page 11 of 17
part of the sale proceeds of over one and half months of the said retail
company.
27. However, it is alleged that the petitioner subsequently changed
the said explanation. Although, the petitioner denied the averments
made in the counter affidavit to the said effect but neither the petitioner
nor the respondents had produced the petitioner’s statement recorded
before the CBI on 22.10.2012.
28. The petitioner filed a response dated 07.07.2014 to the summons
issued under Section 131(1A) of the Act for explaining the source of
cash of ₹98,00,000/- seized from the petitioner. He submitted that he
was a Director of the company (M/s Global Healthline Pvt. Ltd.) which
operated twenty-three retail outlets in Delhi and Gurgaon. The average
sales of the said concern were approximately ₹4,50,00,000/-. The cash
received on account of sales at the said concern was deposited in the
bank accounts maintained with Standard Chartered Bank or HDFC
Bank. However, sometimes due to public holidays, Saturdays and
Sundays, the cash was delivered to him. The petitioner claimed that the
cash amounting to ₹52,70,000/- was lying with him on 19.10.2012
being the date on which the raid was conducted. In regard to the
remaining cash amount of ₹45,30,000/- the petitioner claimed that he
had received the same on various dates – ₹3,50,000/- on 03.09.2012,
₹5,00,000/- on 05.10.2012 and ₹10,00,000/- on 12.10.2012 – as an
advance for the sale of car Porsche bearing Registration No.
DL3CAY4326. The petitioner claimed that the said cash could not be
deposited in his bank accounts as he was travelling out of India from
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.01.2025
19:29:33
W.P.(C) No.10960/2016 Page 12 of 17
15.10.2012 to 17.10.2012. The petitioner also claimed that
subsequently the said transaction was cancelled and the amount was
refunded to the proposed buyer (Mr. Vinay Sharma) by RTGS.
Additionally, the petitioner stated that the amount of ₹30,00,000/- had
been received as an advance for sale of one of the shops belonging to
M/s Global Influence which was located at 103 Central Aarcade,
Gurgaon. The petitioner claimed that he had received cash on
14.10.2012. The said cash also could not be deposited in the bank
account as the petitioner was travelling from 15.10.2012 to 17.10.2012.
The petitioner claimed that the cash was received from one Mr. Dhanraj
on 14.10.2012. However, Mr. Dhanraj had unfortunately expired on
01.01.2013 before the transaction could be completed. The petitioner
claimed that the amount of ₹30,00,000/- was declared in his return of
income for the AY 2013-14 and tax on which was duly deposited.
29. The Income Tax Department was not convinced by the
petitioner’s explanation and in our view rightly so.
30. The explanation provided by the petitioner fails to give any
particulars as to how much cash was collected by each concern and
delivered to the petitioner. A bald statement that the petitioner had
received cash of ₹52,70,000/- from his retail concerns (twenty-three in
numbers) would clearly be insufficient to explain the source of the said
cash. Absent any specific details as to how much cash was collected
from each of the concerns, the date and time of the receipt of the same
and who had delivered the same to the petitioner along with the
necessary books of accounts to establish the same, it would be difficult
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.01.2025
19:29:33
W.P.(C) No.10960/2016 Page 13 of 17
to accept that the cash found in the petitioner’s residence was on
account of proceeds of sales collected from various outlets of a
company in which the petitioner was a director.
31. The explanation that the petitioner has received further sum of
₹18,50,000/- towards refund of advance against sale of a vehicle, a
transaction which admittedly was never consummated, is also
unpersuasive. Whilst the petitioner claims that he could not deposit the
said amount, as he was travelling out of India from 15.10.2012 to
17.10.2012, there is no explanation why the amount, which was
collected on 03.09.2012, 05.10.2013 and 12.10.2012 was not deposited
in the bank account. There is also no explanation why the amount was
collected in cash instead of through banking channels. Further, the
explanation that the petitioner had collected ₹30,00,000/- towards
advance for the sale of shops from a person who had expired prior to
the date on which explanation was offered is difficult to accept. The
petitioner had not produced any explanation why the advance for sale
of property was not received through banking channels and why the
amount was not deposited in the bank accounts immediately on receipt
of the same. It is also relevant to note that although the petitioner claims
that he had received ₹30,00,000/- in cash towards advance for the sale
of immovable property, the said transaction was not completed and yet
the amount received as advance had not been returned. No credible
documents were produced to support the petitioner’s explanation.
32. The concerned income tax authorities had in the requisition for
warrants of authorization under Section 132A(1)(c) of the Act noted
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.01.2025
19:29:33
W.P.(C) No.10960/2016 Page 14 of 17
that the petitioner had not furnished any supporting documents in
respect of his explanation. Although, the petitioner had produced some
documents regarding receipt of cash of ₹18,50,000/- from one Mr.
Vinay Sharma (who has since expired) towards the purported total sale
consideration of ₹26,50,000/- of Porche car; however, there are many
gaps that remain unexplained, for instance, why the cash received was
not deposited in the bank account or why the same was not received
through banking channels. Admittedly, the possession of the car was
not handed over to the prospective purchaser as, according to the
petitioner, he had not paid the balance consideration of ₹8,00,000/-.
Thus, according to the petitioner, he continued to hold cash against a
transaction, which never fructified. There is no material on record to
show the creditworthiness of Mr. Vinay Sharma or any explanation why
he made payments in cash. Given the nature of explanation, we find no
infirmity with the decision of the Income Tax Authorities in not
accepting the same.
33. In view of the above, the petitioner’s contention that the Income
Tax Authorities had no reason to believe that the cash as seized was an
undisclosed asset, is rejected. We find no infirmity with the decision of
the Income Tax Authorities to issue the impugned requisition. Clearly,
it is necessary for the authorities to examine the source of funds seized
from the petitioner’s premises.
34. The third issue to be addressed is whether the Income Tax
Authorities can continue to retain the cash after more than twelve years
have expired since the same was seized. The Income Tax Department
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.01.2025
19:29:33
W.P.(C) No.10960/2016 Page 15 of 17
issued notice dated 08.10.2018 under Section 153A of the Act calling
upon the petitioner to file his correct return of income for the AYs 2011-
12 to 2016-17. Section 153A(1) of the Act posits that where a search is
initiated under Section 132 of the Act or books of accounts, other
documents or any assets are requisitioned under Section 132A of the
Act, the AO shall issue a notice to such a person requiring him to furnish
the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within
six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years
referred to in clause (b) of Section 153A(1) of the Act. In view of the
above, we find no infirmity in the Income Tax Authority issuing the
impugned notice under Section 153 of the Act.
35. Having stated above, it is necessary to note that in terms of
Section 153B(1)(a) of the Act, the assessment under Section 153A of
the Act is required to be completed within a period of twenty-one
months from the end of the financial year in which the requisition under
Section 132A of the Act was executed.
36. In the present case, the warrant under Section 132A(1)(c) of the
Act was executed on 15.12.2016, thus, the Income Tax Authorities are
required to complete the assessment within the time period stipulated
under Section 153B(1)(a) of the Act which was required to be reckoned
from 15.12.2016. In the present case, it is contended on behalf of the
petitioner that the time period for framing an assessment under Section
153A of the Act has expired. Undisputedly, if the time period for
framing an assessment under Section 153A of the Act has expired, and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.01.2025
19:29:33
W.P.(C) No.10960/2016 Page 16 of 17
there is no outstanding demand, the Income Tax Authorities would have
no justification in retaining the seized cash.
37. In view of the above, this court directs that if no demand has been
crystalized against the petitioner as yet, the seized cash be returned to
the petitioner within a period of four weeks from date.
38. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All pending
applications are also disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
JANUARY 10, 2025
‘gsr’
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:10.01.2025
19:29:33
W.P.(C) No.10960/2016 Page 17 of 17