9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tsar Bench, Amritsar (in short, "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 185/Asr/2015, for the assessment year 2011-12, claiming following substantial question of law. (i) "Whether the Hon'ble ITAT committed an error of facts and in law by ignoring the fact that penalty under Section 271AAA of I.T. Act, 1961 was imposed due to non payment of taxes on surrendered income under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the event of department not responding to the assessee' request for adjustment of cash seized against advance tax liability without appreciating the fact that the advance tax does not constitute the existing liability as per specific provision of Section 132B of the I.T. Act, 1961? (ii) Whether the Hon'ble ITAT is correct in facts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome was accepted by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.02.2013 under Section 143(3) of the Act. Seized cash of the assessee was adjusted against the regular taxes and interest payable. Liability determined on completion of assessment order was higher than the amount of cash seized due to charging of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 271AAA of the Act as all the conditions specified for non application of penalty under the said provision were not fulfilled. The assessee pleaded that he had paid all the taxes and interest in relation to undisclosed income and hence no penalty could be levied. The Assessing Officer did not accept the plea of the assessee to the ef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. Assistant Commissioner, (2000) 241 ITR 758 (MP) to contend that the amount seized could not be adjusted towards the advance tax. Reliance was also placed on Explanation 2 to Section 132B of the Act introduced with effect from 01.06.2013 by urging that it was clarificatory and would operate retrospectively. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee supported the impugned order. 6. We do not find any merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue. The issue has already been decided by this Court against the revenue in Income Tax Appeal No. 36 of 2004 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Kumar, (2011) 334 ITR 355 wherein it was recorded as under:- "In Commissioner of Income Tax (C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01.06.2013 whereas the present case relates to the assessment year 2011-12. Further, the relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- "We find that the explanation 2 to Section 132B, as Finance Act, 2013 clearly states is effective from 1st June, 2013. When the law so specifically states, there is no scope of holding that it is retrospective in effect. This provision restricts the scope of adjustment of seized cash, and, therefore, is to be treated as advance to the assessee. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Vatika Township Private Limited, (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC), the legislation which modifies accrued rights or which imposes obligations or impose new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
