TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the AO to rework the interest leviable under section 234B/C. Therefore, we find nothing wrong with this order and follow the same. Appeal of the Revenue dismissed. - ITA No. 936/Chd/2013 - - - Dated:- 27-3-2015 - Bhavnesh Saini (Judicial Member) And T. R. Sood (Accountant Member) For the Appellant : Dr. Amarveer Singh For the Respondent : Ashok Kumar Goyal ORDER T. R. Sood (Accountant Member) The appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 30.07.2013 passed by the CIT(A)-I, Ludhiana. 2. In this appeal Revenue has raised the following ground which are as under : 1. That the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Ludhiana has erred in law and on facgts in adjudicating upon order u/s 154 directing the AO to recalculat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d a cash amounting to ₹ 80,00,000/- was seized. The assessee moved an application dt. 12/03/2010 which was received by the ACIT, Mandi, Gobindgarh on 22/03/2010 that the cash should be adjusted towards advance tax liability. However, AO did not do so and ultimately interest under section 234 B/C was charged. Assessee moved an application under section 154 that interest should not be charged to the extent of ₹ 80,00,000/- but this application was rejected. 4. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) decided the issue partly in favour of the assessee by noticing that since application was received on 22/03/2010, therefore, the seized cash could not be considered as payment of advance tax. He also noticed that amendment made by way of explanati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity had been rejected. The appellant had raised the issue on the basis of judgment of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashok Kumar 334 ITR 355. I have perused the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 154 and the facts of the case. It is a matter of record that an amount of ₹ 80,00,000/- has been seized during the course of search and seizure operation on 10.02.2010 and the assesses had requested for the adjustment of the same against the advance tax due for the year under consideration vide his letter dated 12.03.2010 which was received in the office of ACIT, Mandi Gobindgarh on 22.03.2010 but the same was not accepted. The facts of the case are similar to the facts in respect of CIT v/s Ashok Ku ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y specified that it would be retrospective w.e.f 01.06.1976 even though it had been inserted by the Finance Act 2012. The language of the explanation 4 referred to above reads as under:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified .. Similarly the language used in respect of amendment brought in to section 132B by Finance Act 2013 reads as under:- 4. In view of the above analysis it becomes clear that the amendment brought in by Finance Act 2013 does not have retrospective effect and therefore the judgment of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok Kumar 334 ITR 355 remains the law for the purposes of issue under consideration. Therefore the Assessing Officer is directed to rework the interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
