Wtax/423/2018 Of Sushila Verma v. The Director General Of Income Tax(Investigation)

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 423 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sushila Verma Respondent :- The Director General Of Income Tax(Investigation)Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinayak Mithal,Madan Mohan ChaurasisaCounsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mahajan,Pranjal Shukla,Praval Tripathi Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioner and SriGaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the revenue. 2. Present writ petition has been filed for the following relief: "I. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent authorities toforthwith release the cash which was seized on 07.11.2016 (Rs.19,56,000/-) along withinterest;" 3. Undisputedly, pursuant to a requisition issued against one VarunGupta on 06.11.2016, cash Rs.19,56,000/- was seized from him underSection 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the'Act'). The petitioner claims title over the money seized from VarunGupta. It is also the case of the petitioner that she had filed application infirst proviso to Section 132B of the Act on 08.11.2016 before the IncomeTax Officer, Ward I (4), Kanpur. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that on one hand the aforesaidapplication was kept pending and on the other the assessing authority ofthe said Varun Gupta had subjected the said person to tax on the entireamount of Rs.19,56,000/- claimed by the petitioner. 5. While no mandamus may be issued in such facts, at this stage, ithowever remains a right of the petitioner to have an order on herapplication filed under the first proviso to Section 132B of the Act. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that incase the petitioner files a fresh application before the present AssessingOfficer of the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from today, alongwith a copy of this order, the said authority shall pass a reasoned andspeaking order on the same, as expeditiously as possible, preferablywithin a period of three months therefrom, after affording due opportunityof hearing to the petitioner and such other persons as may be affected bythe order to be passed.