9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horities is a receipt against the tax liability in pursuance to search and seizure operation carried out. We propose to dispose of both the appeals by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity as the issue dealt with by the learned CIT(A) on the basis of assessment orders remain identical. 2. The learned Counsel of the assessee initiating his arguments submitted the brief facts common to these assessees stating that the assessee HUF was formed on 1st July, 1970 and is regular in filing its income in due time since then. Consequent to survey and seizure operation, notices were issued and in response to the same, the appellant appeared through its Authorised Representative and furnished details both verbally as well as in wri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... advance tax paid on 21.02.08. The Assessing Officer charged interests u/s 234A, 234B and 234C by ignoring the cash seized which was adjusted against the advance-tax liability, though there was specific request from the assessee to treat the cash seized and adjusted subsequently as the advance-tax payment on 21-02-2008 vide his letter dated 30-07-2009. On appeal the CIT (A) dismissed the assessee's appeal on the ground that the same is not maintainable. On further appeal, the Tribunal held - "In the light of the above discussion we hold under the facts and circumstances, the appeal is maintainable against the levy of interest under ss. 234A, 2348 and 234C of the Act. The cash seized is adjustable against the due liability of advance tax. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ability-Hence, the Department has to adjust the seized amount towards the advance tax, etc from the date when it was seized-Therefore, AO is directed to adjust the seized cash from the date of seizure". 5. Similarly, in the case of Vishwanath Khanna vs. Union of India & Ors. ((335 ITR 548), it was held - "Interest under ss. 234B and 234C-chargeability - Adjustment of seized cash towards advance tax-According to the assessee, sufficient amount was tending to his credit with the Department and his request for adjustment of the advance tax, etc. was legitimate which should have been allowed by the Department". 6. In the case of Satpaul D. Agarwal (HUF) vs. ACIT,(62 TTJ (Mumbai) 98), Mumbai Bench of ITAT has held - "Interest under ss. 234A, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned CIT(A) categorically noted that the assessee had not submitted any particulars regarding the cash seized and how 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty for advance tax was not for a completed month therefore cannot be charged to the extent that a delay of 8 days may be considered as part of the period when the interest u/s.234C may be charged. The learned Counsel of the assessee has also supported his arguments on the basis of various judicial pronouncements insofar as the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Kesr Kimam Karyalaya (278 ITR 596) had held that when a search is carried out on a business group as a whole to request made by partners were binding on the group when the request for 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. Similarly, ITAT, Mumabi Bench A in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
