The petitioner has filed petition before the High Court against the order passed by the Magistrate  who has handed over the cash seized by Police. Allowing the petition the Court held that under S. 132B, an asset seized during a search under S. 132 or requisition under S. 132A can be applied by the Department to settle any existing liability of the person. On the facts the seizure was effected on 8th Oct., 2022. Income earned by a person during the financial year 1st April, 2022 to 31st March, 2023 is to be assessed in the year 2023-24.1st petitioner, being an assessee is bound to file a return of income not before 31st July, 2023. If the 1st petitioner does not disclose the income that has been detected, the Department would have time to complete the assessment till 31st Dec., 2024. Department would have the power to assess escaped income under S. 147/148 before the expiry of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. S. 132A would not empower the Department to requisition the Magistrate. S. 132B would also have no application. 1st petitioner is yet to file his return. He would have to disclose the sum of Rs. 40 lakhs, which was seized from his employee.  Revenue can thereafter complete the assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As there is no valid order of assessment and no culminated demand for income-tax, the Revenue cannot aspire to keep the money on the premise that there will be demand later in point of time. At present, there is no authority of law under which the money can be demanded and be kept by the Revenue. Order passed by the Magistrate ordering the handing over of the amount to the Revenue cannot be sustained. Abdul Khader v. Sub-Inspector of Police & Ors. (2000) 158 CTR (Ker) 319 (HC)