The grievance of the writ petitioner is that though the Assistant Commi­ssioner of Income Tax, Investigation Circle I, Guwahati directed release explained articles seized, the department has not complied with the said Of order. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows :- fly virtue of a warrant of authorisation issued by the Director of Income-tax (Investigation), Calcutta a search and seizure operation was carried out in the business and residential premises of the petitioner on 25.2.93 and 26.2.93. The operation was conduc­ted under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter in accordance With the provisions of sub-section(5)of the said section the assessing autaonty passed an order on 24.6.1993 vide Annexure S to tae present petition. The laid order was passed after following all the procedure as laid down in the above section 132. In the order, it was also directed that the un-explained seized property may be retained by the revenue and the properties forwhich the explanation was given by the assessee i.e. the writ petitioner may be refunded. As the seized properties were not released as per the above order, a presentation was filed by the writ petitioner and it was duly considered by the Assistant Commissioner, Investigation Circle I, Guwahati and by letter dated 19.7.93 addressed to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong it was stated that the assets mentioned in the assessee's petition dated 26.6.93 were treated as being explained in the order under section 132 (5) and, therefore gold, jewelleries and ornaments to the extent of 6234.9 grams seized from the business premises and gold, jewellaries and ornaments to the extent of 2317.18 grams and silver article* weighing 19,150 grams may be released. As the properties were not released, this Court has been approached. 2. In the counter filed on behalf of the revenue the above facts are not disputed. But the revenue has taken a plea that to safeguard the interest of revenue the explained properties of the assessee seized, cannot be released without any security. In paragraph 9 of the counter, it has been stated that the total liability of the present writ petitioner may come upto Rs. 62 lakhs and odd, 3. Heard Mr. RP Agarwalia, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the revenue. 4. The limited question in this case is the interpretation of sub-section (5) of section 132 of the Income Tax Act. 62 lakhs and odd, 3. Heard Mr. RP Agarwalia, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the revenue. 4. The limited question in this case is the interpretation of sub-section (5) of section 132 of the Income Tax Act. 1961. The relevant portion runs as follows : "..and retain in his custody such assets or part thereof as are in his opinion sufficient to satisfy the aggregate of the amounts referred to in clauses (ii), (iia) and (iii) and forthwith release the remaining portion, if any of the assets to the person from whose custody they were seized." 5. Reading the said sub-section (5), it is clear that within time limited/fixed 1. by the legislature, namely, 120 days, the concerned authority has to pass the appropriate orders and forthwith release the remaining portion of the seized articles to the person from whose custody these were seized. In the case in hand also the order is very clear that the petitioner has explained some seized properties and the concerned authority also directed to release the properties. 6. According to Mr. Agarwalia, the order passed under sub-section (5) of section 132 is not an assessment order which has to be passed after following due procedure and hearing the assessee. Mr. Agarwalia has further urged that only after assessment is made steps for realising the amount so assessed may be taken as provided under the law and for this purpose the seized properties which were explained cannot be retained. 7. On the other hand Mr. Talukdar has urged that section 226 of the Act empowers the revenue even to retain the explained seized property. Mr. Talukdar has also drawn attention of this Court to section 132B in this regard, more particularly clause (iii) of sub-section (1). 8. In my opinion section 226 of the Act will come into operation only after final assessment is made. This cannot apply to action taken under section 132 of the Act, as the legislature has clearly provided under sub­section (5) of section 132 that it is the duty of the concerned authority to release the seized assets forthwith for which proper explanation has been given by the person from whom these were seized. 8A. This cannot apply to action taken under section 132 of the Act, as the legislature has clearly provided under sub­section (5) of section 132 that it is the duty of the concerned authority to release the seized assets forthwith for which proper explanation has been given by the person from whom these were seized. 8A. Regarding section 132B the opening words of the said section are very clear as the first sentence of sub-section (1) of the said section starts with the words "The assets retained under sub-section (5) of section 132 may be dealt with in the following manner :'" The word 'retained' in this section means the seized assets retained after the order is passed under sub-section (5) of section 132 and for which no explanation could be given by the person from whose custody these were seized. Therefore, I hold that section 132B shall not apply to the seized assets for which proper explanation has been given by the person from whom such assets were seized. In the case in hand also section 132B shall not apply for which direction has been issued by the Assistant Commissioner under sub-section (5) of section 132 of the Act. 9. In view of what has been stated above, let a writ of Mandamus be issued directing the authorities to forthwith release the seized property for which explanation has been given by the writ petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.