TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 938X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visions of the Income Tax Act and in the decision of Shri Mahesh Choudhary Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar II, Ranchi [2014 (11) TMI 906 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT] - the assessee is directed to appear before the 3rd respondent - Decided in favour of assessee. - W.P. (T) No. 1889 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 23-7-2014 - R. BANUMATHI AND Amitav K. Gupta, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Poddar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate, Ms. Darshana Poddar Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Piyush Poddar, Advocate, Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Deepak Roshan, Advocate. ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction upon the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal in part. As against the order of the ITAT, Revenue is said to have preferred appeal before this Court in Tax Case Appeal No. 25 of 2012 and the same has been admitted and pending. 3. After the appeal was partly allowed by the ITAT, the assesse has sent letter on 06.12.2012 and again on 08.01.2013 requesting the Department to treat the amount of ₹ 27,00,000/- seized during the course of search as advance tax from the date of seizure itself. Since no order has been passed on the said application dated 06.12.2012 and also the letter dated 08.01.2013, the assesse has preferred this writ petition. 4. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. B. Poddar, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the provisions of the Act and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng for the Revenue submitted that explanation 2 to Section 132B(4)(a) of the Act clearly states that for the removal of doubts, . that existing liability does not include advance tax payable in accordance with the provisions of Part-C of Chapter-XVII and therefore the amount of ₹ 27,00,000/- seized, has to be calculated as per Section 132B(4)(a) of the Act and the same cannot be taken as advance tax from the date of seizure of the said amount. 7. Without going into the merits of the rival contentions, we direct the 3rd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 06.12.2012 and subsequent letter dated 08.01.2013 in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the above judgments and also the judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
