TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26-11-1997 - R. P. Garg And M. A. Bakshi,JJ. For the Appellant. Saurabh Upadhyaya For the Respondent.A.K. Kaushal ORDER M.A. Bakshi, J.M. : We find it convenient to dispose of these two cross-appeals, one by the assessee and one by the Revenue for Assessment Year 1989-90, by this consolidated order. 2. We first take up the appeal of the assessee. The dispute in this appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made to the Assessing Officer for adjustment of the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 against the taxes that may be found due in the course of proceedings under s. 132(5). An order under s. 132(5) was passed on 23rd of March, 1989, and since the likely liability of the assessee was more than the cash seized, the Asstt. CIT directed for retention of the seized assets. The assessee filed the return of income an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration to the rival catenations. It is not disputed that a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 has been seized during the previous year relevant to assessment year 1989-90. The assessee had also made a request for adjustment of the said amount towards the tax liability. Section 132(5) empowers the Revenue to retain any seized assets or cash seized on the date of search if it is found that the tax liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s claim may be examined by the Assessing Officer by treating the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 as advance tax. For that purpose, the issue is remitted to the file of the AO to be decided afresh in accordance with law. 6. We now take up the appeal of the Revenue. The only issue involved in this appeal is relating to the deduction under Chapter VI-A. The assessee made certain investments during the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
