JUDGMENT By the Court.—By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: (a) “issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of certiorari and quash the proceedings initiated under Section 153-A of the Income Tax Act against the petitioner No. 2 for the A.Y. 2006-07 to 2011-12 in view of the specific provisions contained in Rule 112 F as well as the Circular No. 10 of 2012 dated 31.12.2012 after summoning the records. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to release the Cash of Rs. 7,15,000/- either to Petitioner No. 1 or to the petitioner No. 2, since the same belongs to Petitioner No. 1 and was being carried for depositing in the HDFC Bank at Varanasi was illegally seized. (c) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of Prohibition/Mandamus prohibiting/directing the oppoiste party No. 2 from assessing the petitioner under Section153A for the A.Y.2006-07 to 2011-12 as well as for the A.Y. 2012-13 and not to impose tax and realize the same. (d) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the Opposite Party No. 1 to release the cash with interest @18% since the same has been seized against the SOP issued by the Election Commission of India on 15.1.2012 as well as the circular No. 10 of 2012, which is binding on the opposite parties. (e) .............................. (f) ..............................” 2. Brief facts giving rise to the petition are that the petitioner No. 1 got a contract of National Highway Authority of India for collecting ‘Toll’ at Lala Nagar Toll Plaza on National Highway 2 situated in District Sant Ravidas Nagar and the contract became effective from 9.1.2012 (24 hrs)/10.1.2012 (00hrs). The petitioner No. 2 Sri Sanjay Agarwal is an employee of the petitioner No. 1, as General Manager w.e.f. 8th February, 2010. 3. On 11.1.2012, in the morning at about 10.00 a.m., the petitioner No. 2 was going in a Innova Car bearing No. UP-32/CX-1288 to HDFC Bank, Lohata Branch, Varanasi. On the way, he was intercepted by the Police. A cash of Rs. 7,15,000/- was seized from his possession. 3. On 11.1.2012, in the morning at about 10.00 a.m., the petitioner No. 2 was going in a Innova Car bearing No. UP-32/CX-1288 to HDFC Bank, Lohata Branch, Varanasi. On the way, he was intercepted by the Police. A cash of Rs. 7,15,000/- was seized from his possession. The information was given to the Income Tax Department and the officers of the Income Tax Department seized the money, after due approval of the Additional Director, Income Tax (Investigation), Varanasi. After the preliminary investigation, the proceedings under Section 153-A were started for the assessment year 2006-07 to 2011-12 i.e. Block Period. Notices under Section 142(1) and 142(2) of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13 were also issued to the petitioner No. 2. Being aggrieved, both the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 4. With this background, Sri Pradeep Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after getting the Contract, the petitioner No. 2 - Sri Sanjai Agarwal was staying in the tourist bungalow at Gopiganj, Bhadohi. As he was authorised to collect the money from the Toll Plaza, he collected the money from the Toll Plaza for depositing the same in the HDFC Bank, which is the Principal Banker of the petitioner No. 1. He was carrying the cash with ‘carrying certificate’ of the company. He submits that the cash collection was as under: 5. Out of the Cash Collection, amount, Rs. 7,15,000/- was taken for the deposit. The remaining amount was in small denomination so, the same was left at the Toll Plaza. 6. Learned counsel further submits that since the Election in U.P. were notified on 24.12.2011, which were to be conducted in phase manner from 8.2.2012 to 3.3.2012. The money was seized as there was the standard operating procedure (SOP) and the direction of the Election Commission of India to Flying Squad and Surveillance Team. 7. Learned counsel further submits that on 15.1.2012, the Election Commission of India had clearly issued the clarification that if the cash is sent to the Bank for deposit, same shall not be seized and only a form will have to be filled up by the custodian of the currency. He also submits that Rule 112 -F of the I.T. Rules 1962, specifically provides that no notice shall be issued under Section 153-A for a period of six years in such cases. He also submits that Rule 112 -F of the I.T. Rules 1962, specifically provides that no notice shall be issued under Section 153-A for a period of six years in such cases. This was further clarified by CBDT in Circular No. 10 of 2012 dated 31.12.2012 and, therefore, the notice issued under Section 153-A to petitioner No. 2 for six assessment years, is highly illegal and against the legislative spirit of the Act. He submits that the amount has not been released till date inspite of the fact that on 13.3.2013, the petitioner No. 2 has given details of the amount to the assessing authority and requested to drop the proceedings initiated under Section 153-A of the Act for the assessment year 2006-07 to assessment year 2011-12 in view of Rule 112-F of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as well as Circular No. 10 of 2012 dated 31.12.2012. For this purpose, he relied on the ratio laid down in the case of CIT v. Vindhya Metal Corporation, (1997) 224 ITR 14 (SC), where the Hon’ble Apex Court while upholding the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court has observed that: “Mere unexplained possession of the amount, without anything more, could hardly be said to constitute information which could be treated as sufficient by a reasonable person, leading to an inference that it was income, which would not have been disclosed by the person in possession for the purpose of the Act.” 8. Further, in the case of Diamond Stars/Exports Ltd. v. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) Bombay, (2005) 278 ITR 36 (Bom), it was observed that no proceedings under Section 132 of the Act can be carried out merely on the basis of an information to the effect that a person is in possession of a certain cash, jewellery or ornaments. Lastly, he made a request that the seized amount may kindly be refunded alongwith 18% interest and the proceedings under Section 153-A may be dropped. 9. On the other hand, Sri D. D. Chopra, learned counsel for the department, at the strength of the affidavit furnished by the opposite party No. 3 submits that the S.O. Rohaina Police Station, Varanasi, on 11.1.2012 intercepted a Innova Car by Static Surveillance Team. A cash amounting to Rs. 7,15,000/- was found and seized from the possession of the petitioner No. 2. The denominations of the cash seized were as under : 10. A cash amounting to Rs. 7,15,000/- was found and seized from the possession of the petitioner No. 2. The denominations of the cash seized were as under : 10. He submits that the petitioner No. 2 in his statement dated 11.1.2012 has informed that Toll Fee is Rs. 45/- per Car and Rs. 160/- per Truck/Bus for one trip. The petitioner is working as a Collection Agent for Lal Nagar Toll Plaza situated in District Sant Ravi Das Nagar, Bhadohi. The total amount of Rs. 8,13,439/- was collected during three shifts on 10.1.2012 plus one shift (ending on 08.00 am) on 11.1.2012. The explanation given by the petitioner No. 2 was not found satisfactory. Lastly, he justified the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 11. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the cash was seized from the possession of the petitioner No. 2 by the police who referred the matter to the Income Tax Department and after necessary approval, proceedings under Section 132-A of the Act were initiated. 12. Submission of the petitioner’s counsel is that the amount should be released alongwith interest @18% as no proceedings can be initiated as per Rule 112 (F) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 as well as Circular No. 10 of 2012 dated 31.12.2012. 13. Rule 112(F) came into existence by 4th amendment w.e.f. 1.7.2012. The Circular No. 10 is dated 31.12.2012 but the cash was seized on 11.1.2012. So, the benefit of the said amended rules or circular cannot be given as the same are not applicable retrospectively. 14. In the instant case, it appears that the amount was collected at the Toll Plaza, where the fee for the Car was Rs. 45/- and for the Truck/Bus, Rs. 160/- per trip. From the statement furnished by the petitioner pertaining to the previous collection, it appears that the Collection was made as under: 15. It is also allegation of the Department that the note of highest denomination of Rs. 1,000/- per day were 76 and on the date of seizure, the same were Rs. 115/-. The explanation of the petitioner is that note of smaller denomination were held at the toll plaza since there is a shortage of small denomination. It is also allegation of the Department that the note of highest denomination of Rs. 1,000/- per day were 76 and on the date of seizure, the same were Rs. 115/-. The explanation of the petitioner is that note of smaller denomination were held at the toll plaza since there is a shortage of small denomination. Further, it appears that it is the first week of the petitioner and in the absence of experience, small denomination currency was held up at the toll plaza. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the explanation given by the petitioner prima facie appears to be reasonable. The amount belongs to the company i.e. the petitioner No. 1 and certainly not to the petitioner No. 2, who is merely an employee of the company. The explanation, if any, will have to be sought from the petitioner-company. So, there is no occasion to start the proceedings under Section 153 A of the Act against the petitioner No. 2, who is simply an agent of the company. 17. In the light of above discussion, we are of the view that the proceedings for the block period is not required in the case of the employee i.e. petitioner No. 2 specially when no such proceedings were initiated against the petitioner No. 1. 18. Hence, we set aside the proceedings of the block assessment pertaining to the petitioner No. 2 and accordingly mandamus is issued for not proceeding any further against the petitioner No. 2 pertaining to the block assessment in pursuance of the notice under Section 153-A. However, the proceedings for the current assessment year will continue. Further, the opposite parties are directed to release the seized amount within a period of four weeks as per law, which shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings for the current assessment year. The department is always at liberty to take proceedings against the company i.e. petitioner No. 1 but as per law. 19. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally.