1. Introduction

The case of Gautam Thadani v. Director Income Tax (Investigation) and Anr. reached the High Court of Delhi, bringing into focus critical aspects of search and seizure proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner, Mr. Gautam Thadani, challenged the retention of INR 98,00,000/- seized from his residence in 2012 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The case revolved around whether the Income Tax Department could validly invoke Section 132A of the Act to requisition the seized currency, the justification for such action, and how long the authorities could retain the amount when no definitive demand had been established.

The Judgment, delivered by the Delhi High Court on January 10, 2025, reflects a significant interpretation of Section 132A of the Income Tax Act. It confirms the Department’s authority to requisition assets believed to be unaccounted for, yet emphasizes that the seized amount cannot be retained indefinitely. Ultimately, statutory deadlines for making assessments under Section 153A must be adhered to, or the seized amount must be released if no tax liability is definitively established.

The key issues before the Court included:

• Whether the Income Tax Department’s requisition powers under Section 132A(1)(c) were exercised validly.
• Whether the Department had reasons to believe that the amount was undisclosed income.
• Whether there was an inordinate delay in issuing the requisition and if that rendered it illegal.
• The permissible duration for retaining the seized assets absent any concrete tax demand.

The parties involved included the petitioner, Mr. Thadani, the Director of Income Tax (Investigation), and the Superintendent of Police of the CBI, who had originally seized the funds. Representatives for both the petitioner and the Revenue made detailed submissions regarding the validity of the ongoing investigation, assessments, and the requirement to return the seized funds.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The High Court upheld the requisition under Section 132A, finding that the Income Tax Department had sufficient grounds to consider the seized INR 98,00,000/- potentially undisclosed income. The Court accepted that although there was a delay between the initial CBI disclosure of seized assets in 2013 and the passing of the requisition order in 2016, the Department provided plausible reasons relating to ongoing investigations.

However, the Court underscored that the Department cannot retain the seized amount indefinitely. Under Section 153B(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, assessments initiated under Section 153A (pursuant to a Section 132A requisition) must be completed within a stipulated timeframe—specifically, within twenty-one months (the limit applicable at the time the Court recited) from the end of the financial year in which the requisition is executed. If, by then, no liability is definitively established against the assessee, the Department must return the seized amount.

Ultimately, the petition was disposed of with the explicit direction that if no demand has been crystallized against the petitioner by the expiration of the limitation period, the seized amount of INR 98,00,000/- is to be returned to him within four weeks.

3. Analysis

(a) Precedents Cited

The Court referred to its own jurisprudence, including decisions that impose a requirement of timeliness on tax authorities in concluding investigations and assessments. In particular, counsel for the petitioner invoked the ruling in Gauri Shankar & Ors. v. Director of Income Tax, 2016:DHC:3810-DB, where prolonged withholding of seized assets was disapproved unless supported by a valid, ongoing investigation or assessment. While the Court did not rely heavily on other specific citations in the text of the Judgment, it did reinforce a principle recognized in earlier precedents: tax authorities must operate within strict timelines and cannot use seizure and requisition powers to maintain indefinite custody of assets without sufficient cause.

(b) Legal Reasoning

• Examination of “Reason to Believe”: Under Section 132A(1)(c), the Principal Commissioner, Director, or similar authority must form a bona fide “reason to believe” that the assets in question represent undisclosed income. The Judgment places emphasis on the petitioner providing insufficient or non-credible explanations about the source of the seized money. The Court highlighted that mere assertions of ongoing business sales or abrupt references to cancelled transactions are not enough; the taxpayer must supply consistent documentation.
• Validity of Requisition Even if Delayed: Although the delay was “apparent,” the Income Tax Department adequately accounted for time taken to conduct internal investigations and coordinate with the CBI. The Court found no ground to invalidate the requisition solely on the basis of time lag because official steps and verifications required time, especially given that the petitioner’s explanations remained “unpersuasive.”
• Assessment Timeline Under Section 153A & Return of Seized Assets: Once a requisition is executed, the Department may invoke Section 153A to undertake or reopen assessments for the relevant years. However, Section 153B(1)(a) imposes a clear finishing line for completing these proceedings. If the Department fails to finalize the assessment and raise a demand within the statutory deadlines, it cannot continue to hold the assets ad infinitum.

(c) Impact

This Judgment reaffirms that while the Income Tax authorities enjoy extensive powers to curb tax evasion and investigate unaccounted money, such powers must operate within the confines of statutorily prescribed timeframes. Any assets seized or requisitioned under Section 132A cannot be indefinitely retained, and taxpayers retain the right to reclaim them if no definite tax liability is established within the legislated deadlines. Going forward, the decision issues a cautionary note to tax authorities considering similar requisitions. They must:

• Ensure proper documentation and credible evidence when forming the “reason to believe.”
• Proceed with timely assessments under Section 153A without undue delay.
• Release seized amounts promptly after the expiry of the limitation period if no demand has been finalized.

Consequently, this ruling may deter unwarranted retention of funds and encourage more efficient and orderly conduct of investigations by the Income Tax Department.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Section 132A of the Income Tax Act: This provision empowers certain high-level authorities (e.g., the Director General) to requisition books of account, documents, or assets that have been taken into custody by another agency (like the CBI) if they have “reason to believe” that these represent undisclosed income or property.
• “Reason to Believe”: A statutory precondition requiring a genuine and concrete rationale for suspecting that seized items or documents pertain to unaccounted income. Authorities cannot invoke search or requisition powers based on mere speculation.
• Assessment under Section 153A: When assets are seized or requisitioned, the Department is obliged to call upon the affected individual or entity to file updated or fresh returns for up to six preceding assessment years, plus the current assessment year. The objective is to scrutinize whether the seized assets are properly accounted for.
• Completion Time Limit (Section 153B(1)(a)): Once proceedings under Section 153A are triggered, the Income Tax Act prescribes a limit—formerly twenty-one months from the end of the financial year in which the requisition is executed—to complete the assessment. Failure to do so within this window generally prevents the Department from retaining the seized assets.

5. Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Gautam Thadani v. Director Income Tax (Investigation) and Anr. underscores two main points: (i) the Department can legitimately requisition assets under Section 132A where there is a well-grounded suspicion of unaccounted income, and (ii) such power does not justify perpetual retention without an established tax demand. Where the Income Tax Authorities fail to complete assessments within the statutory deadlines, or if the assessments do not yield any tax demand, they must release the seized funds to the petitioner.

The Judgment further cements the principle that “with great investigative powers come commensurate responsibilities.” Adequate evidence, consistent explanations, and efficient follow-up are essential for the State to intervene in private property rights. Failure to adhere to mandatory timelines or to support allegations with credible proof can nullify the advantage gained through the requisition of assets and requires that the seized property be returned to its rightful owner.

Overall, this decision is significant for both taxpayers and the Income Tax Department. It safeguards individual property rights by preventing indefinite confiscation and prompts the authorities to pursue transparent and timely completion of tax investigations.