TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he seized amount lying in PD accounts against the advance tax liability, as has been discussed in the order of Ld. CIT(A). 2. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that since there was a short fall in the payment of tax on the returned income, the incident of interest u/s 234B and 234C was automatic and in accordance with the Income-tax Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the section 132B(1) is very clear that the seized or relinquished assets may be dealt with against existing liability under the Income-tax Act, and not against the advance tax and in doing so lost sight of the very purpose of the legislation of section 132B(1) of the Income-tax Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r opined that the existing liability should be the liability existing on the day of search. The Ld. counsel for the assessee appearing before the Ld. CIT(A) submitted his comments in the rejoinder which are available at pages 4 5 of the CIT(A) s order that the matter is covered by the decision of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashok Kumar reported in 334 ITR 355 (P H) on identical facts and therefore, the AO has grossly erred in holding that existing liability does not cover advance tax liability. The Ld. counsel for the assessee also relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT-I vs. Shri Jyotindra B. Mody dated 21.09.2011 on the identical facts. 4.1. The Ld. CIT(A) after con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sting liability due on 15.03.2009. Mr. Salil Kapoor, prayed to confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) accordingly. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. The arguments made by the Ld. counsel for the assessee, Mr. Salil Kapoor, Advocate, are found to be convincing that the Income Tax Department had issued a notice u/s 156 alongwith order under section 210 dated 25.02.2009 creating advance tax demand of ₹ 3,45,69,000/- and therefore, the advance tax demand becomes the existing liability for the next installment of advance tax payable on 15.03.2009. The assessee has also filed letter dated 03.03.2009 requesting the department to adjust the seized amount of ₹ 89,30,000/- lying in the P.D. account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee did not receive any response that the aforesaid applications had been rejected. However, in the assessment order, interest amounting to ₹ 1,04,412/- and ₹ 1,47,024/- /s 234A and 234B was charged. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal against deduction made and also charging of interest under section 234A 234B before the CIT(A) who vide order dated 5 th Jan., 1996 deleted the interest charged u/s 234A and 234B of the Act. Feeling dissatisfied, the Department took the matter in appeal and the Tribunal vide order dated 23 rd July, 2003 dismissed the appeal which gave rise to the Revenue to approach this Court by way of instant appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
