Section 132B: 120-Day Cash Release Rule Referred to Larger Bench 2026

What Happened?

The Gujarat High Court has referred an important question to a Larger Bench concerning the mandatory release of seized assets under Section 132B of the Income Tax Act 2025 when the Assessing Officer (AO) fails to decide the release application within 120 days. This referral signals judicial recognition that the current interpretation of this provision may need clarification, creating significant implications for taxpayers whose cash and assets have been seized during income tax raids.

Background & Legal Context

Section 132B of the Income Tax Act 2025 deals with the release of seized money and valuables. Here's the legal framework you need to understand:

• What is Section 132B? When income tax authorities conduct a search and seizure under Section 132, they may seize cash, jewellery, documents, and other valuables. Section 132B provides the mechanism for the release of these seized items.
• The 120-Day Rule: Under Section 132B, the Assessing Officer must decide whether to keep the seized items or release them within 120 days from the date of seizure. This is a critical safeguard to prevent indefinite retention of taxpayer assets.
• What Happens After 120 Days? The core issue referred to the Larger Bench is: Does the seized asset automatically release if the AO does not decide within 120 days, or can the AO continue to hold it beyond this period?
• Practical Scenario: Imagine a raid conducted in January 2026 where ₹50 lakhs cash is seized. By May 2026 (120 days later), if the AO has not filed any application to keep the cash, should it automatically be returned to the taxpayer? Or can the AO continue holding it indefinitely?
• Previous Legal Position: Different courts have interpreted Section 132B differently. Some courts held that non-compliance with the 120-day timeline means automatic release (pro-taxpayer). Others suggested that the 120-day period is merely procedural and not mandatory for release (pro-revenue).

Why This Larger Bench Referral Matters: When a High Court refers a matter to a Larger Bench, it signals that:

• The current legal position is unclear or conflicted
• The principle impacts numerous taxpayers across multiple cases
• A definitive ruling is needed to establish binding precedent

What Does This Mean for You?

For Taxpayers Under Current Raids (AY 2025-26 and AY 2026-27):

• Interim Uncertainty: Until the Larger Bench decides, your seized assets may remain in limbo even after 120 days pass. You cannot rely on automatic release based on the 120-day period alone.
• Filing Applications is Critical: Do not wait passively. If 120 days have passed since your seizure, immediately file an application under Section 132B requesting release, backed by proper documentation. This creates a formal record and puts pressure on the AO to decide.
• Burden of Proof: Currently, you must prove that the seized items are not proceeds of income-tax evasion or black money. Maintain all evidence showing the legitimate source of seized cash—bank deposits, business records, gift deeds, inheritance documents, etc.
• Potential Favourable Outcome: If the Larger Bench rules that 120 days is a mandatory statutory period (meaning automatic release if AO does not decide), then thousands of taxpayers with seized assets could get relief. This would be a significant win for taxpayer rights.
• Unfavourable Scenario: If the Larger Bench upholds the AO's power to hold assets beyond 120 days, your reliance on the timeline is weakened, and you must pursue legal remedies like writs and appeals.

For Those Settled or Past Assessments: If your raid was in AY 2024-25 or earlier and assets remain unreleased, this ruling could retroactively apply and provide grounds to file fresh petitions.

What Should You Do Now?

Immediate Action Items:

• 1. Audit Your Seizure Timeline: If you faced a search under Section 132, count exactly 120 days from the seizure date. Note it in your calendar.
• 2. File Section 132B Application ASAP: Do not wait for the Larger Bench decision. Engage a CA and file a formal application requesting release of seized items. Include:
  • Detailed explanation of the source of funds/assets
  • Bank statements, invoices, purchase receipts, gift deeds
  • Affidavits from witnesses confirming the source
  • Proof that these items are unrelated to income-tax evasion
• 3. Follow-Up in Writing: If the AO does not respond within 30 days of your application, send a reminder with registered post. Create a documentary trail.
• 4. Explore Interim Relief: Approach the High Court for interim relief to secure the release of perishable or urgently needed items (e.g., business inventory, working capital cash) even while the main issue is pending.
• 5. Monitor the Larger Bench Ruling: Once the Gujarat High Court (or subsequent appellate decisions) delivers the judgment, immediately evaluate its applicability to your case and file fresh petitions if needed.
• 6. Consult a Specialist CA: Section 132B matters are complex. Hire a CA experienced in search and seizure cases to navigate the legal nuances and procedural requirements.

Key Takeaways

• Section 132B 120-Day Ambiguity: The Gujarat High Court's Larger Bench referral highlights genuine ambiguity about whether seized assets must be automatically released if the AO does not decide within 120 days.
• Taxpayer Rights at Stake: This ruling will define whether the 120-day period is a mandatory safeguard or merely procedural, affecting thousands of taxpayers in pending cases across AY 2025-26 and AY 2026-27.
• Proactive Filing Essential: Do not rely on passive waiting. File Section 132B applications immediately upon completing 120 days, backed by comprehensive source documentation, to protect your interests.
• Larger Bench Decisions are Binding: Once the Larger Bench rules, its decision becomes binding on all High Court benches and lower courts, establishing uniform national precedent for all similar cases.
• Future-Proof Your Position: Whether the ruling favours taxpayers or revenue, having filed timely applications and maintained strong documentary evidence ensures you can pursue appropriate legal remedies without losing time.

Final Word: The 120-day period under Section 132B is your first line of defense against indefinite asset seizure. While judicial clarity is welcome, do not let this pending Larger Bench decision paralyze your action. Engage professionals, file applications, and build a bulletproof paper trail starting today.

Need expert help with this? EaseValue CAs in Jaipur — WhatsApp 63677 44602