TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of seized valuables against the advance tax liability for the assessment year under consideration – decided in favour of Assessee. - I.T.A. No.2085/Ahd/2012, I.T.A. No.2086/Ahd/2012 - - - Dated:- 25-10-2013 - Shri A. Mohan Alankamony And Shri Kul Bharat,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Vijay Ranjan, AR For the Respondent : Shri J. P. Jhangid Sr. DR ORDER Per Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member : Both these appeals by the different assessees are directed against the common order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-IV, Ahmedabad ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 20/07/2012 pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2010-2011. Since common issues are involved, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. First, we take up the Assessee's appeal, i.e. ITA No.2085/Ahd/2012 for AY 2010-11. The Assessee has raised the following concised common grounds of appeal:- 1) In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax(A) erred in omitting to consider the appellant's ground before him challenging the validity of the rectification order passed u/s.154 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade for release of jewellery in October, 2009 against the tax liability of the appellants. (vii) The AO didn't agree to the request of the appellants and disposed off the applications filed u/s.154 of the Act with assigning specific reasons for the same." 2.1. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions, partly allowed the assessees' appeals. Against this, the assessee(s) are in appeals before us. 3. At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee(s) submitted that he does not wish to press ground No.1 of the appeal as the matter may be decided on merit. 4. Ground No.2 is against the action of ld.CIT(A) in not directing the AO to make adjustment of the payment made by the assessee towards release of seized valuables aggregating to Rs.20,55,000/- against the assessee's advance tax liability for the assessment year in question. The ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that this issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee by various judicial pronouncements. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Coordinate Bench (ITAT Rajkot) rendered in the case of Shri Ram S.Sarda vs. Dy.CIT bearing ITA No.1172/Rjt/2010 for AY 2008-09. The ld.counsel for the assessee has also pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assets seized u/s 132 of the Act and even the liability to pay advance-tax as per the statutory provisions and there is no plausible reason ascribing a restricted meaning to the expression 'existing liability' appearing in section 132B(1)(i) of the Act. The expression existing liability in section 132B(1)(i) cannot be read to exclude a particular tax liability if it can be shown to have existed on a particular date. If the liability to pay the advance-tax had arisen it would certainly constitute a part of existing liability as per section 132B(1)(i). According to the scheme of section 132B, the seized assets to be applied to the discharge of existing liabilities in respect of which the assessee was in default or was deemed to be in default as well as the liability in respect of regular assessment or re-assessment for the years relevant to the previous years to which the income related and in respect of which the assessee was in default or was deemed to be in default. However, during the search, money had been seized and retained by the revenue, such money can be applied for the discharge of both the liabilities. On the other hand, if money seized was not sufficient for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The assessee also made the request for the adjustment of cash seized against the advance-tax with effect from 21- 02-2008 vide letter dated 30-07-2009. To maintain consistency we follow the above order of ITAT and we issue similar direction to assessing officer that should adjust the seized cash against advance-tax liability from the date of seizure itself." 5.1. The contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee is that the facts are identical in the present case also. The Sr.DR could not point out any change in the facts. We find that the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in the case of Shri Ram S.Sarda (supra), after considering the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab Haryana(supra) and other decisions of Coordinate Benches has decided this issue in favour of assessee. The Revenue has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh rendered in the case of Ramjilal Jagannath vs. Asst.CIT reported at (2000) 241 ITR 758 (MP). The said decision is not applicable on the facts of the present case since the said decision was rendered prior to amendment in section 132 of the IT Act,1961. Therefore, we do not find any reason to take a different view than taken by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
