TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the said amount and no interest could be charged on that basis Also see Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana Vs. M/s Cosmos Builders and Promoters Limited [2015 (9) TMI 139 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ] wherein held that the assessee was entitled to have the cash seized adjusted against its advance tax dues. - ITA No. 25 of 2016 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 28-2-2017 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Ramendra Jain, JJ. Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lal Chandani, Mr. Nitin Mehra, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, and Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocates for the respondent ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontroversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. On 09.09.2010, during the course of search, cash of ₹ 99,00,000/- was seized from the residence and bank lockers of the respondent-assesseee. Vide letter dated 15.09.2010, the assessee requested the Assessing Officer to adjust the cash seized during search against his expected advance tax liability. The request of the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer as Assessing Officer was of the view that seized cash could not be adjusted against advance tax liability as the same was not existing liability. The assessee filed returned income of ₹ 3,04,23,555/- on 30.03.2012 in which ₹ 3,00,00,000/- was shown as undisclosed income. The assessee did not pay an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26.08.2013, Annexure A.1. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 27.01.2015, Annexure A.2, the CIT(A) held that Explanation 2 to Section 132B of the Act inserted by Finance Act, 2013 was clarificatory in nature. It was further held that the said amendment did not have retrospective effect. Thus, the CIT(A) allowed the relief to the assessee. Not satisfied with the order, the department filed an appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 31.08.2015, Annexure A.3, the Tribunal upheld the decision taken by the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Department. Hence, the instant appeal by the revenue. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made on 28.08.1989 and reminder on 12.09.1989, no interest was exigible under Sections 234-A and 234-B of the Act. The Tibunal has rightly held that the assessee was entitled to adjustment of the said amount and no interest could be charged on that basis. Therefore, no fault could be found with the approach adopted by the Tribunal. 7. Similarly, in ITA No.425 of 2014 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana Vs. M/s Cosmos Builders and Promoters Limited) decided on 14.07.2015, the issue was adjudicated against the revenue. The assessee has been held entitled to adjustment of cash seized against its advance tax dues. It has further been held that the Explanation 2 to Section 132B of the Act is not retrospective in nature. The SL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
