9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2009. The assessee moved an application u/s 154 submitting that excess interest has been charged under sections 234B and 234C. Therefore, order u/s 154 was passed on 06.11.2009. In this order, apart from credit of Rs. 4,76,834/- granted earlier, credit of Rs. 60,56,196/- was granted on account of self-assessment tax paid by the assessee. Interest of Rs. 3,34,290/- was charged u/s 234B and interest of Rs. 1,15,124/- was charged u/s 234C. The aforesaid order was challenged before the CIT(Appeals)-III, New Delhi. 2. It was submitted that tax payable on the returned income amounts to Rs. 60,49,080/-. After giving credit for tax deducted at source of Rs. 4,76,834/-, the liability comes down to Rs. 55,72,246/-. The cash of Rs. 90.00 lakh seized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and re-compute the interest accordingly. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the revenue is in appeal before us. The only substantive ground taken before us is that the ld. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in directing the AO to re-compute interest under sections 234B and 234C by adjusting a part of the seized cash towards advance-tax liability on 12.03.2009. 4. Before us, the ld. DR relies on the order of the AO, while the ld. counsel for the assessee supports the impugned order on the basis of decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of K.K. Marketing (supra). 5. We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. The facts have already been summarized by us. The limited question before us is-whether, the Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he contention urged by the assessee. A mention was made that while tax laws and equity do not always go hand in hand but in the present case, since there is nothing to prohibit the assessee from making a request for adjustment of cash, equity demands the cash ought to have been adjusted as prayed by the assessee. 5.1 When we look to the facts of this case, we find that they are in pari-materia with the facts of the case of K.K. Marketing (supra). The search was conducted on 19.01.2009 in which cash amounting to Rs. 90.00 lakh was seized. The advance-tax payment thereafter fell due on 15.03.2009. Before that the assessee wrote a letter to the Additional Director to adjust the cash towards his liability and the liabilities of the associates. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
