the proceedings were initiated under s. 132A of the IT Act, 1961 and the authorities came to the conclusion that person who was going in train, had cash/sale proceeds with him and the IT authorities came to the conclusion that it was concealed income. The apex Court found that in view of amendment in s. 132A of the IT Act, 1961 by the Finance Act, 2017, "reason to believe" or "reason to suspect" was not to be disclosed to any person or authority or Tribunal. Considering the law laid down by the apex Court , the claim of the present petitioners is not justified at all. 24. This Court finds that the ACJM, Mandal, while deciding the application of the petitioner has clearly recorded a finding, after considering the case law, that the money which has been seized by the police can always be claimed by the petitioner, after the IT Department concludes its proceedings, which have been initiated by issuing notice to the petitioner. 25.This Court finds that in case summons to the petitioner was issued under s. 131 of the IT Act and petitioner has been asked to explain the amount so seized, the authorities are bound to conclude the proceedings as per law and the petitioner has all the liberty to avail remedy provided against such order being passed. 26.Accordingly, the present writ petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.