JUDGMENT : Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J: 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner (assessee), claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs throughout, and by an appropriate writ order and/or direction, a. entire proceedings under Section 131/132 of the Income Tax Act, including the Order impugned dated 13.05.2024 (Annexure-10) and 19.06.2024 (Annexure-11) may kindly be quashed and set aside; and b. “reasons to believe” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may kindly be called for, for perusal of this Hon’ble Court; c. any further, consequential and/or other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, the petitioner (assessee) is the Sole Proprietor of the Firm M/s. K.P., and is engaged in the business of wholesale trading of gold jewelry/ornaments with purity of 18 & 22 Carat, since the year 2014, and that, there is nothing on record which could show any irregularities or illegalities on the part of the petitioner (assessee) in the conduct of the said business. 2.1. The gold ornaments so traded by the petitioner’s Firm are very small in nature such as rings, tops, bangles, bracelet, necklace, chains etc., as per the trend and demand prevalent in the market at the relevant time, and therefore, it is not possible and feasible to maintain the stock register item-wise. 2.2. The genesis of the controversy is traceable to the date 22.03.2024, on which the petitioner, traveled from Pali to Bikaner, for the purpose of his business, while carrying the stock of gold ornaments under the cover of valid delivery challans. The petitioner further averred that he also took delivery of some ornaments, which weighed approx. 800 grams, from a courier and issued certain invoices to the buyers/customers, qua which four invoices were also produced. Meanwhile, his vehicle was intercepted by the FST Team No.5 of MLA Area, Bikaner West at 03:30 p.m. and was taken to the Police Station City Kotwali, District Bikaner and a team of GST Department and the Income Tax Department were called upon for verification of the goods. 2.3. Meanwhile, his vehicle was intercepted by the FST Team No.5 of MLA Area, Bikaner West at 03:30 p.m. and was taken to the Police Station City Kotwali, District Bikaner and a team of GST Department and the Income Tax Department were called upon for verification of the goods. 2.3. The petitioner, in the instant petition, further averred that the authorities of the GST Department, after being satisfied with all the relevant documents produced by the petitioner and the genuineness thereof, in regard to the issue in question, deemed it appropriate not to proceed further in the matter, and accordingly, they left the place without conducting any further proceedings against the petitioner. 2.3.1. However, without duly considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the Income Tax Department initiated the proceedings under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1961’) and summons were issued to the petitioner in the aforesaid Police Station on 22.03.2024 itself, by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Bikaner, along with the list of seized articles. Panchnama was drawn by the authorized officers and countersigned by the ITO (Assessment) 1(2)(2), Bikaner and the valuation of 398 pieces of ornaments of the stock of gold was conducted by the Registered Valuer. 2.3.2. During such proceedings, the statements of the petitioner were recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of 1961, wherein, as per the petitioner, he extended his full cooperation. 2.4. As per the petitioner, the stock of Jewelry having gross weight of 4603.110 grams and net weight of 4146.69 grams was seized under Section 132A of the Act of 1961 by the Deputy Director (Investigation), Bikaner, despite the fact that the same was duly supported by the invoices. Thereafter, again on 08.04.2024, the statements of the petitioner were recorded under Section 131 of the Act of 1961. 2.5. Furthermore, as per the petitioner, in response to the summons issued on 26.03.2024 under Section 131(1A) of the Act of 1961, the petitioner submitted a detailed response, with a request to quash and set aside the proceedings in question, and sought release of the seized jewelry (stock-in-trade). 2.5. Furthermore, as per the petitioner, in response to the summons issued on 26.03.2024 under Section 131(1A) of the Act of 1961, the petitioner submitted a detailed response, with a request to quash and set aside the proceedings in question, and sought release of the seized jewelry (stock-in-trade). However, when the grievance of the petitioner still subsisted, he addressed a letter to the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), wherein as per the petitioner, he touched each and every legal as well as factual aspect of the matter in question, thereby prayed for release of the gold jewelry/ornaments (Net weight 4146.690 gms.) so seized in the proceedings in question. However, the said request was denied by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Bikaner, vide the impugned communication dated 13.05.2024, indicating amongst others that the same cannot be released at that stage, as it is not ascertainable that the seized goods were wholly related to the petitioner’s Firm, and that, the assessment proceedings in the petitioner’s case for the relevant assessment year, have not been initiated, on the said date of the issuance of the impugned communication. 2.6. Thus, being aggrieved of the aforesaid proceedings and the impugned communication dated 13.05.2024, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner (assessee) claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 4. This Court observes that the stock of the gold ornaments (gross weight) 4603.110 grams, being carried by the petitioner on 22.03.2024 was intercepted by the respondents on the way and seized under Section 132-A of the Act of 1961, by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Bikaner. The same has not been released, despite the petitioner explaining the reasons for release of such seized goods; the rejection of release of the case property, as made vide order dated 19.06.2024, is under challenge in the present writ petition. 5. This Court further observes that the principal argument of the petitioner is that the respondents have acted in sheer violation of the proviso to Section 132(1)(iii) of the Act of 1961, which provides that stock-in-trade of the business cannot be seized. 6. 5. This Court further observes that the principal argument of the petitioner is that the respondents have acted in sheer violation of the proviso to Section 132(1)(iii) of the Act of 1961, which provides that stock-in-trade of the business cannot be seized. 6. This Court also observes that in the present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the proceedings under Sections 131/132 of the Act of 1961, citing that Section 132 has ‘reasons to believe’ and thus, once the ‘reasons to believe’ were specified then the proceedings ought to have been dropped. 6.1. For ready reference Sections 131 & 132 of the Act of 1961 are reproduced as hereunder: Section 131: “Power regarding discovery, production of evidence, etc. 131. (1) The Assessing Officer, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Joint Commissioner, Joint Commissioner (Appeals)], Commissioner (Appeals), Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner and the Dispute Resolution Panel referred to in clause (a) of sub- section (15) of section 144C shall, for the purposes of this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), when trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:— (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a banking company and examining him on oath; (c) compelling the production of books of account and other documents; and (d) issuing commissions. (1A) If the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director or Joint Director or Assistant Director or Deputy Director, or the authorised officer referred to in sub-section (1) of section 132 before he takes action under clauses (i) to (v) of that sub-section, has reason to suspect that any income has been concealed, or is likely to be concealed, by any person or class of persons, within his jurisdiction, then, for the purposes of making any enquiry or investigation relating thereto, it shall be competent for him to exercise the powers conferred under sub-section (1) on the income-tax authorities referred to in that sub-section, notwithstanding that no proceedings with respect to such person or class of persons are pending before him or any other income-tax authority. (2) For the purpose of making an inquiry or investigation in respect of any person or class of persons in relation to an agreement referred to in section 90 or section 90A, it shall be competent for any income-tax authority not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, as may be notified by the Board in this behalf, to exercise the powers conferred under sub-section (1) on the income-tax authorities referred to in that sub-section, notwithstanding that no proceedings with respect to such person or class of persons are pending before it or any other income-tax authority. (3) Subject to any rules made in this behalf, any authority referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) or sub-section (2) may impound and retain in its custody for such period as it thinks fit any books of account or other documents produced before it in any proceeding under this Act : Provided that an Assessing Officer or an Assistant Director or Deputy Director shall not— (a) impound any books of account or other documents without recording his reasons for so doing, or (b) retain in his custody any such books or documents for a period exceeding fifteen days (exclusive of holidays) without obtaining the approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or Principal Director or Director therefor, as the case may be.” Section 132: “Search and seizure. 132. 132. (1) Where the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director or Joint Commissioner in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that— (a) any person to whom a summons under sub-section (1) of section 37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under sub-section (1) of section 131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such books of account or other documents as required by such summons or notice, or (b) any person to whom a summons or notice as aforesaid has been or might be issued will not, or would not, produce or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents which will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act, or (c) any person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and such money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been, or would not be, disclosed for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or this Act (hereinafter in this section referred to as the undisclosed income or property), then,— (A) the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director or the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, may authorise any Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director, Joint Commissioner, Assistant Director or Deputy Director, Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Income-tax Officer, or (B) such Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director, or Joint Commissioner, as the case may be, may authorise any Assistant Director or Deputy Director, Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Income-tax Officer, (the officer so authorised in all cases being hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer) to— (i) enter and search any building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft where he has reason to suspect that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are kept; (ii) break open the lock of any door, box, locker, safe, almirah or other receptacle for exercising the powers conferred by clause (i) where the keys thereof are not available; (iia) search any person who has got out of, or is about to get into, or is in, the building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft, if the authorised officer has reason to suspect that such person has secreted about his person any such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing; (iib) require any person who is found to be in possession or control of any books of account or other documents maintained in the form of electronic record as defined in clause (t) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), to afford the authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect such books of account or other documents; (iii) seize any such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing found as a result of such search: Provided that bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, being stock-in-trade of the business, found as a result of such search shall not be seized but the authorised officer shall make a note or inventory of such stock-in-trade of the business; (iv) place marks of identification on any books of account or other documents or make or cause to be made extracts or copies therefrom; (v) make a note or an inventory of any such money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing : Provided that where any building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft referred to in clause (i) is within the area of jurisdiction of any Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, but such Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner has no jurisdiction over the person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), then, notwithstanding anything contained in section 120, it shall be competent for him to exercise the powers under this sub-section in all cases where he has reason to believe that any delay in getting the authorisation from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner having jurisdiction over such person may be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue : Provided further that where it is not possible or practicable to take physical possession of any valuable article or thing and remove it to a safe place due to its volume, weight or other physical characteristics or due to its being of a dangerous nature, the authorised officer may serve an order on the owner or the person who is in immediate possession or control thereof that he shall not remove, part with or otherwise deal with it, except with the previous permission of such authorised officer and such action of the authorised officer shall be deemed to be seizure of such valuable article or thing under clause (iii): Provided also that nothing contained in the second proviso shall apply in case of any valuable article or thing, being stock-in-trade of the business: Provided also that no authorisation shall be issued by the Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director or Joint Commissioner on or after the 1st day of October, 2009 unless he has been empowered by the Board to do so. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the reason to believe, as recorded by the income-tax authority under this sub-section, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal. (1A) Where any Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to suspect that any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing in respect of which an officer has been authorised by the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director or any other Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director or Joint Commissioner to take action under clauses (i) to (v) of sub-section (1) are or is kept in any building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft not mentioned in the authorisation under sub-section (1), such Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, notwithstanding anything contained in section 120, authorise the said officer to take action under any of the clauses aforesaid in respect of such building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the reason to suspect, as recorded by the income-tax authority under this sub-section, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the reason to suspect, as recorded by the income-tax authority under this sub-section, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal. (2) The authorised officer may requisition the services of,— (i) any police officer or of any officer of the Central Government, or of both; or (ii) any person or entity as may be approved by the Principal Chief Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner or the Principal Director General or the Director General, in accordance with the procedure, as may be prescribed, in this regard, to assist him for all or any of the purposes specified in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) and it shall be the duty of every such officer or person or entity to comply with such requisition.] (3) The authorised officer may, where it is not practicable to seize any such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, for reasons other than those mentioned in the second proviso to sub-section (1), serve an order on the owner or the person who is in immediate possession or control thereof that he shall not remove, part with or otherwise deal with it except with the previous permission of such officer and such officer may take such steps as may be necessary for ensuring compliance with this sub-section. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that serving of an order as aforesaid under this sub-section shall not be deemed to be seizure of such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing under clause (iii) of sub-section (1). (4) The authorised officer may, during the course of the search or seizure, examine on oath any person who is found to be in possession or control of any books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and any statement made by such person during such examination may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the examination of any person under this sub-section may be not merely in respect of any books of account, other documents or assets found as a result of the search, but also in respect of all matters relevant for the purposes of any investigation connected with any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act. (4A) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search, it may be presumed— (i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and (iii) that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person's handwriting, and in the case of a document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped and executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested.” 7. This Court further observes that the categorical stand of the respondents is that when the petitioner (assessee) was asked to give itemized stock register and match the items carried by him with the stock register, he could not do so, to the satisfaction of the authorities. The itemized stock register was not furnished. The net weight mentioned of the jewelry items did not match with the closing stock as on 21.03.2024 and was found to be different. The same has been demonstrated by the respondents by the answers given to Question No.18 in the statements in the proceedings under Section 131 and also in the answer to Question No.13. 8. This Court also observes that the respondents have further taken a stand that the difference in valuation, the itemized stock registers not being produced and the bills of Rs. 50,00,000/- not corresponding to the value of the gold items which was worth Rs.2.16 crores, became the reason for not releasing the same. 9. 8. This Court also observes that the respondents have further taken a stand that the difference in valuation, the itemized stock registers not being produced and the bills of Rs. 50,00,000/- not corresponding to the value of the gold items which was worth Rs.2.16 crores, became the reason for not releasing the same. 9. This Court further observes that the assessment proceedings are still going on and the present tax liability is still not ascertainable. 10. This Court also observes that once there is a factual dispute regarding the itemized stock register and the quantity of the gold seized, then all other documents can be considered by the assessing authority while completing its assessment proceedings. The assessment is for the year 2024-25, and this case is covered under Section 132 of the Act of 1961 and after completion of such assessment, if the tax liability is arising then the petitioner shall have his own remedy, regarding the ornaments, but non-release thereof at this stage is justified. 11. The first summons under Section 131 of the Act of 1961, as examined by this Court, was a sufficient opportunity for the petitioner to explain the source of the gold, and his failure to do so has prompted the respondents to initiate the proceedings under Section 132A, which has been done after due and prior approval of the concerned authorities as per the Act of 1961. 12. This Court also observes that the stock register of the Firm was present, but the jewellery items and the stock register bills were not matching. 13. The order dated 19.06.2024 under Section 132B of the Act of 1961 thus, cannot be interfered with at this stage, as the information received warrants the assets to remain in custody. The compulsory proceedings have to take place and the petitioner during the assessment proceedings will get sufficient time and opportunity to defend his case and take his remedy by filing the appeal before the CIT(A), if any adverse order is passed and therefore, at this stage, no interference is called for in the present petition. 14. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.