TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or adjustment was not to be doubted by the assessing authorities for adjusting the liability of tax , if any, on the partners against the cash seized. Also Satpaul D.Agarwal (HUF) v. ACIT [1997 (11) TMI 487 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein held that the amount so adjusted should be treated as advancer tax for the purpose of computation of interest u/ss.234A, 234B and 234C insofar as the claim for non-levy of interest there under is an appealable issue. Also see Vishwanath Khanna v. Union of India (2011 (6) TMI 146 - DELHI HIGH COURT] seizure of cash which the assessee was entitled to interest on the amount which became refundable after giving effect on the basis of the order of the AO insofar as the assessee would be entitled to interest u/s.244A from the date of the amount held by the Revenue in their account of seizure. Thus set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and direct the AO to grant interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C on the demand so raised against the amount adjusted by him from the date of seizure as prayed for by the assessee - in favour of assessee. - I.T.A.Nos. 003 and 004/CTK/2013 - - - Dated:- 14-2-2013 - Shri K. K. Gupta And Shri K. S. S. Prasad Rao,JJ. For the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to completion of assessment. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, the appellant filed an appeal before the first Appellate Authority. The learned CIT(A) has also confirmed the order of the learned assessing officer. He submitted that the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3)/153C of Income Tax Act on the declared income. The Learned Assessing Officer did not adjust payment of Rs.45,00,000/-, from the seized cash lying with the dept as per the request. Consequently, interest u/s 234B was charged on the said Rs.45,00,000/-, upto the date of passing the order i. e. 29.12.2011. The Department gave credit of Rs.45,00,000/-, from seized cash on 28.03.2012, in the name of the appellant. An appeal was filed against the order of the Assessing Officer for not adjusting the cash seized and also for charging interest on the same. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) dismissed the appeal for not being satisfied with the Grounds of Appeal on the plea that levy of interest is mandatory and the Assessing Officer has no discretion to wave off the interest us 234B. He has not gone to the fact of the case and the logic of utilization of seized cash against the Self-Assessment tax for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r s. 2348-chargeability-Adjustment of seized cash towards Advance Tax liability-Assessing Authority was wrong in not adjusting the seized cash against the advance tax as requested for by the assessee-AO is directed to adjust the seized cash against advance tax from the date on which the assessee made the request for the adjustment and recomputed the levy of interest under s. 234B accordingly". In this case the Tribunal has followed the order of CIT vs. K. K. Marketing. 3. In the case of CIT vs. Ashok Kumar [334 ITR 355 (P H)] High Court of Punjab Haryana it was held "Interest under ss. 234A and 234B-chargeability - Assessed tax vis-a-vis seizure of cash - Assessee is entitled to adjustment of seized amount towards advance tax liability from the date of making the application in that regard". 4. In case of Sudhakar M. Shetty vs. ACIT,(10 DTR (Mumbai)(Trib) 173), it was held - Interest under ss. 234B and 234C-Chargeability-Adjustment of seized cash-Seized cash has to be appropriated towards any pending demand including penalty and against the demand arising out of block assessment-In the instant case, assessee requested the Department to adjust the cash which was seized during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w it was given credit against the demand raised by the Assessing Officer whether the tax liability relate to the income returned by the assessees. The charging of interest for deferment and non-payment of advance tax is mandatory which the learned CIT(A) has rightly considered that the Assessing Officer was not to pass the order indicating such adjustment. She therefore fully supported the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record. The learned CIT-DR has not been able to controvert the facts n the case laws cited at the Bar which compilation has been filed by the learned Counsel of the assessee insofar as the undisputed facts are that the cash was seized and was rendered as income by the assessees. The adjustment was made by the Assessing Officer on the authorization but on 28.3.2012 i.e., after much lapse of period when the cash was seized on 8.4.2009. For the Assessment Year 2009-10, the assessee was required to file the return under the Income-tax provisions when it was prayed that the income returned by the assessee includes the income so considered by the assessing authorities having already suffered tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
