Judgment :- V. RAMASWAMI, J. This is a petition for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to return the box of the petitioner with its contends seized from the residence of one Mr. Mohan, No. 1, Annai Nagammai Street, Madras-28. The articles contained in the box are listed in the schedule to this petition. 2. The facts, as appearing from the affidavit, counter affidavit and the records produced in this case, are as follows : On the 24th September, 1974 the petitioner took the box containing the jewels to deposit it in the locker which she had in the Canara Bank, Mandavellipakkam, Madras-28. By the time she reached, the Banking hour was over. Therefore, instead of bringing back the same to her residence, which is about two to there miles away, she left the articles with one Mrs. Mohan, who was residing at No. 1, Annai Nagammai Street, Madras-28, with instruction to keep it so that she could come on the next day and deposit it in the Bank. In the meanwhile, in connection with the affairs Punalur Paper Mills Limited, which came under the control of one Mr. L.N. Dalmia from 1967 onwards, a search was authorised by the CIT to be conducted into the premises of the said mills and other connected establishment and individuals who were connected in one way or the other with the said Mills and the connected group of mills and business houses. In connection therewith, the residence of Mr. Mohan, No. 1, Annai Nagammai Street, Madras-28, was also searched on the 25th September, 1974 before the petitioner could go over there and take the box and deposit it in the Canara Bank. At the time of search, it appears Mrs. Mohan alone was in the house and Mr. Mohan was in his office. During the search, Mrs. Mohan informed the IT authorities that the box had been left with her by the petitioner herein on the previous day with instructions to keep it so as to enable her to deposit in the locker on the next day. When Mr. Mohan arrived some time latter, he also confirmed this statement of his wife. The authorities were also told that the key of the jewel box was with the Petitioner. During the search, the authorities seized a bunch of papers and files found in the house. When Mr. Mohan arrived some time latter, he also confirmed this statement of his wife. The authorities were also told that the key of the jewel box was with the Petitioner. During the search, the authorities seized a bunch of papers and files found in the house. They also came to know of Mr. Mohan having a bank locker, being No. 6 in the Canara Bank, Mandavellipakkam, Madras-28. The authorities issued a prohibitory order under S. 132(3) in respect of the Bank locker of Mr. Mohan in the Canara Bank and they also issued a prohibitory order with respect to the jewel box after putting the same in an almirah found in the house and sealing it. Later, on the 30th September, 1974 the bank locker was opened and found to contain jewellery worth about Rs. 28, 275. This was seized and taken possession of and removed from the locker. On the same day, the box containing the jewels which was claimed by the petitioner was also taken possession of, but it was not opened by the IT authorities. It was removed with the seals intact. At the time of taking possession of this box containing the jewels which the petitioner claims it as her own, she was also present at premises No. 1, Annai Nagammai Street. On the next day, i.e. on 1st October, 1974, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the Dy. Director of Inspection, Income-tax claiming that the box and the jewels contained therein belong to her. On the 9th October, 1974 a notice under S. 132 r/w R. 112-A was issued to Mr. Mohan which reads as follows :- "Whereas some jewellery were seized from a bank locker in the course of a search conducted at your premises at No. 1-A, Annai Nagammai Street, Madras-28 on 25th September, 1974 in pursuance of the authorisation issued under S. 132 of the IT Act, 1961 by the CIT, Madras III and whereas it is proposed to treat the same as your income from undisclosed sources, I hereby require you to appear before me on 30th October, 1974 at 11 a.m. at the above-mentioned address to explain or to produce or cause to be produced evidence on which you may rely for explaining the nature of the possession of the said jewellery and source of the acquisition. In case, you do not wish to appear in person, you may send a duly authorised representative or submit your explanation in writing on or before the above mentioned date." * On 2nd November, 1974 to which the enquiry under S. 132(5) was posted the petitioner was informed that the IT authorities want to open the box and she was required to bring the key with her. She produced the key accordingly. Before opening the box or that day, she was asked some question. One question was as to whether the box belongs to her and whether she can give the description of the box. She asserted that it is her box and that it was a ready-made jewel box of brown and cream colour. When asked as to what she had kept in the box, she stated as follows :- "1. Thick Bangles. 2. Mothika Choodi (8 Bangles) 3. Baby Bangles (4 chains) 4. Rings 7 or 8 5. Gold necklace (white and red). It may be one. One ring has an initial of a floral design. I cannot say the weight of the jewellery. Gold necklace and bangles made a set. There are gold stones studded in them along with mothi." * After this statement, the box was opened and an inventory of the articles were taken in which the box was also found to contain an inventory of the articles written in Hindi which was claimed by the petitioner as in the handwriting of her husband and some corrections made therein in her own handwriting. The inventory was in the letter head paper of the petitioner's husband. The enquiry under S. 132(5) in pursuance of the notice dt. 9th November, 1974 issued to Mr. Mohan was held on 2nd November, 1974 and 26th November, 1974. On 26th November, 1974 a further statement was recorded from the petitioner in which to question as to why she did not mention anything about the diamond jewellery found in the box in her statement on 2nd November, 1974, the petitioner stated that she understood the question on the earlier occasion as if she was asked to identify the box with reference to the contends and, therefore, she mentioned only a few items which came to her mind immediately. Even during the enquiry, Mr. Even during the enquiry, Mr. Mohan had been asserting all the time that the jewel box or its contends did not belong to him and that they belong to the petitioner herein. By an order dt. 21st December, 1974 after holding that some of the jewellery seized from the Bank locker of Mr. Mohan in the Canara Bank were in the opinion of the ITO acquired from out of the undisclosed sources of income of the said Mr. Mohan, he proceeded to consider whether the jewellery in the box belong to the petitioner or to Mr. Mohan. On certain inferences, which it is not necessary to traverse here, the ITO came to the conclusion that even the jewellery in the box belonged to the wife of Mr. Mohan. Accordingly, he made an order on 21st December, 1974 under S. 132(5) directing the retention of the jewellery to the extent of Rs. 60, 364.00 and releasing the balance. It may be mentioned that this order was admittedly not served on the petitioner even as on date. 3. In this Writ Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the notice of enquiry under S. 132(5) r/w R. 112-A issued to Mr. Mohan was only with reference to the jewellery seized from the Bank locker in the course of search conducted, as seen from the notice already extracted, and that there was no enquiry at all with reference to the jewellery contained in the box which the petitioner claimed as her own. The order could not therefore, hold that the jewellery belonged either to Mrs. Mohan or to anybody else. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that no notice was issued to her under S. 132 and R. 112-A informing her of the purposal to treat the jewellery as that of Mr. Mohan and show cause against such proposal. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the seizure itself was effected, at least on 30th September, 1974 when the box was taken possession of and removed from premises No. 1, Annai Nagammai Street an order under s. 132(5) after issuing notice to her should have been made within three months from that date after issuing notice to her should have been made within three months from that date and that having not been done, the Department could not retain the jewellery with them. On these grounds, according to the learned counsel, he is entitled to the mandamus prayed for in this Writ Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded in his contention that the enquiry which followed the notice under S. 132 and R. 112-A issued to Mr. Mohan was only with reference to the jewellery seized from the Bank locker of that person and did not relate to the jewellery of the petitioner found in the box. The notice which I have already extracted clearly shows that the notice related only with reference to the jewellery seized from the Bank locker in the course of the search conducted on 25th September, 1974. It is stated in the counter affidavit that in this notice by inadvertence mention was made only of the jewellery items in the locker and the jewellery contained in the sealed box was not specifically mentioned and that the non-mention of the items of Jewellery contained in the jewel box will not in any way vitiate the said notice or the subsequent proceedings. Factually, there is no basis for this statement that it is only by inadvertence that the jewellery contained in the sealed box was not referred to in the said notice. It will be seen from the statement of facts made earlier that the sealed box was not opened till the first date of enquiry on 2nd November, 1974 while the notice was issued on the 9th October, 1974. On the 30th September, 1974 itself jewels in the Bank locker of Mr. Mohan were seized. Certainly, therefore, the notice rightly mentioned the jewellery seized from the Bank locker as the subject matter of enquiry under S. 132(5). I am, therefore, unable to agree with this contention of the respondents that the enquiry even cover the jewels contained in the sealed box which the Petitioner claims as her own. Further, under S. 132(5) where any of the assets referred to therein are seized, the ITO after affording a reasonable opportunity to the person concerned for being heard and making such enquiry as may be prescribed shall within ninety days, make an order of detention. Further, under S. 132(5) where any of the assets referred to therein are seized, the ITO after affording a reasonable opportunity to the person concerned for being heard and making such enquiry as may be prescribed shall within ninety days, make an order of detention. The person concerned to whom an opportunity is to be given under this provision depends on the Prima facie satisfaction of the ITO that the assets seized were the undisclosed income of the assessee against whom notice is issued under S. 132(5). In a case where during a search, some assets are seized and claimed by a third party, the ITO even at the time of issuing a notice under R. 112-A would have to be satisfied as to the person against whom he would like to proceed under S. 132(5). That satisfaction probably could be inferred if the notice is issued to be person from whom the goods are seized mentioning the entire articles and giving also an opportunity to the third party who claimed it as his during the enquiry under s. 132(5). If on the other hand, even at the time when the notice under R. 112-a is issued, the ITO Prima facie is of the view that it did not belong to the person from whom they were seized, it would be open to him to take proceedings under S. 132(5) against that third party who made the claim instead of the person from whom the goods were seized. But in both these cases, since the person from whom the goods are seized is different from the person who claims ownership, both would have to be heard under S. 132(5). Even though at the time, when he issued the notice under R. 112-A, the ITO entertained a belief that the assets belonged the person from whom they were seized, or to the third party, it was open to him after the enquiry under S. 132(5) to change his opinion and come to a different conclusion or hold that it belongs to some one who was not before him in the enquiry. In such a case he could proceed under S. 132(7) and such further proceedings will again be one under S. 132(5). In such a case he could proceed under S. 132(7) and such further proceedings will again be one under S. 132(5). If as per the original view he confirms in his order S. 132(5) that it belonged to the person whom he suspected was the owner, then he makes the order under S. 132(5). Any person aggrieved, whether the person from whom it was seized or the person who claimed it, can file an appeal under S. 132(11). This in my view is the procedure that is contemplated under S. 132. This is also supported by two earlier decision reported in Ramjibhai Kalidas vs. I.G. Dessai ITOand Pannalal vs. ITO MP which were followed by a Division Bench of the Court in Galab and Co. vs. Suptd. of Central excise (Mad) The following passage from the decision in Ramjibhai Kalidas vs. I.G. Desai, ITO (supra) was quoted with approval by this Court :- "What is the true connotation of the expression 'person concerned' ? Mr. Pathak on behalf of the Petitioners contended that the word 'person from whose possession the undisclosed income or property was seized, and they had no reference to the owner of the undisclosed income or property in cases where the person in possession was other than the owner. This contention does not appeal to us. The words used are 'person concerned' and not 'person from whose custody of possession the assets were seized." * We find that in sub-s. (5) itself, the legislature has used two different expressions, namely 'person concerned' and 'person from whose custody they were seized'. To equate one expression with the other would be to attribute looseness of language to the legislature. The ordinary cannon of construction is that when the legislature has used two different expression in the same Section, the legislature must have intended to convey two different meanings. The words 'person concerned' in the context in which the occur clearly refer to the person who would be concerned or affected by the making of the order and retention of the seized assets under sub-s. (5). The words 'person concerned' in the context in which the occur clearly refer to the person who would be concerned or affected by the making of the order and retention of the seized assets under sub-s. (5). Ordinarily, having regard to the nature of the undisclosed income or property the person found in possession of it would be the owner and in the absence of any information to the contrary, the ITO would presume him to be the owner and proceed against him under sub-s. (5) "Where such is the case, the person in possession would be the 'person concerned' for the purpose of sub-s. (5). But, if, as a result of examination of the person in possession under sub-s. (4) or otherwise, the ITO comes to know that some one other than the person in possessions is the owner of the undisclosed income or property, he may proceed to take action against such person under sub-s. (5) and in that event such person and not the person in possession would be the 'person concerned. The 'person concerned' would be the person in respect of whom the ITO proposes to make an order under sub-s. (5). Such person has to be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before an order is made against him and the assets seized are retained for satisfaction of his existing and estimated tax liability." * It may be seen from the second paragraph extracted above, that it is not necessary for the ITO to proceed under S. 132(5) against the person from whom the assets were seized and it is open to him to proceed against the person who claimed to be as his also. As I have already stated, in this case neither the ITO in the notice under s. 132 and R. 112-A issued to Mr. Mohan proceeded against him with respect of the jewellery found in the box claimed by the petitioner nor against the petitioner herein in any separate proceedings. Therefore, the ITO could not have dealt with the question of ownership of these jewellery in his order dt. 21st December, 1974. 5. Mohan proceeded against him with respect of the jewellery found in the box claimed by the petitioner nor against the petitioner herein in any separate proceedings. Therefore, the ITO could not have dealt with the question of ownership of these jewellery in his order dt. 21st December, 1974. 5. It was then contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue that if the petitioner was aggrieved with the order, she could have filed an appeal under S. 132(11) as that provision enables any person aggrieved against the order to file an appeal against such an order to the prescribed authority. But, in this case, as already stated no proceedings were initiated with reference to the jewellery and even the order made without property procedure had not been served on the petitioner as on date. Further, the existence of an alternative remedy itself would not be a bar for invoking the powers of this Court under Art. 226. On the facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the Writ Petition could not be disposed of on the short ground that the petitioner had got an alternative remedy. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed and the Rule Nisi is made absolute. 6. It is represented that by an interim order, the petitioner was permitted to take delivery of possession of the jewellery on furnishing security by way of shares. It the petitioner had already taken delivery of possession, the security offered by her would now have to be released and the share certificates deposited by the Petitioner would have to be returned to her. There will be no order as to costs.