Sushil Kumar Soni vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1

PDF · subscribers
WP/32183/2026HC Madhya Pradesh05 October 2026Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE2 pages
For Petitioner: Sanjay Mishra
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Court noted that the petitioner had withdrawn the relief sought for the release of seized cash, gold, and silver ornaments. The primary remaining prayer was for a decision on the representation dated 12.06.2026. The Revenue correctly pointed out that the representation was addressed to the Principal Commissioner, while the assessment proceedings were being conducted by the Assistant Commissioner. In light of this, the Court directed the petitioner to make a fresh application as provided under Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, which can include an application for condonation of delay, to the appropriate authority. This application is to be decided on its merits after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petition was disposed of with these observations.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sushil Kumar Soni, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to decide his representation dated 12.06.2026 and to release seized cash, gold, and silver ornaments. The seizure occurred on 03.04.2024. During arguments, the petitioner withdrew the prayer for the release of seized items and pressed only for a decision on his representation. The Revenue pointed out that the representation was addressed to the Principal Commissioner, while assessment proceedings were being handled by the Assistant Commissioner at Jabalpur. The petitioner had received a communication dated 20.12.2024, which led to his representation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Court should direct the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to decide the petitioner's representation dated 12.06.2026, concerning seized assets, as a question of law. 2. Whether the seized cash, gold, and silver ornaments, claimed as stock-in-trade, should be released, as a question of mixed law and fact. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought a direction for the Principal Commissioner to decide his representation dated 12.06.2026 and for the release of seized assets. During arguments, the petitioner pressed only for a decision on the representation. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the representation was addressed to the wrong authority (Principal Commissioner) as the assessment proceedings were being undertaken by the Assistant Commissioner. They referred to Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, which provides for applications to the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALPESH Y. KOGJE, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN ON THE 5th OF OCTOBER, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 32183 of 2026 CNR No.: MPHC010570902026 SUSHIL KUMAR SONI Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Sanjay Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Siddharth Sharma - Advocate with Shri Shubham Manchani - Advocate for the respondent. ORDER Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje, Chief Justice The present petition is filed for the following reliefs :- (i) That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to decide the representation filed by the petitioner on 12.6.2026 Annexure P-4.

(ii) That, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to release the cash, gold and silver ornaments which is the stock and trade of the petitioner and has been seized on 03.4.2024.

(iii) That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case shall also be granted. 2. However, during the course of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed for the relief pertaining to the release of cash, along with 1 WP-32183-2026 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:79244 Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 06-10-2026 17:57:24 Signature Not Verified

(ALPESH Y. KOGJE) CHIEF JUSTICE (VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE gold and silver ornaments which according to the petitioner is the stock in trade of the petitioner and which has been seized on 3.4.2024 but has pressed for a decision on the representation dated 12.06.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the Revenue has taken this Court to the provision applicable particularly Section 132B of Income Tax Act and proviso thereto which provides for an application to the Assessing Officer. The representation at Annexure P4 dated 12.06.2026 being addressed to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax whereas the assessment proceedings are undertaken by the Assistant Commissioner at Jabalpur. 4. Obviously, such representation made by the petitioner was on account of the communication received by the petitioner vide communication dated 20.12.2024 (Annexure P3). However, now it is a matter of fact that the assessment is being undertaken by the Assessing Officer being the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. 5. In view of the aforesaid, this Court leaves it upon the petitioner to make the application as provided under Section 132B of Income Tax Act along with any other necessary application including an application for accepting such application with delay and the same be decided on merits after opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid observation, petition stands disposed off. nks

2 WP-32183-2026 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:79244 Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR SARATHE Signing time: 06-10-2026 17:57:24 Signature Not Verified

More judgments on Section 132B

All 102 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →