Tribunal rules seized cash should offset tax liability, interests to be adjusted from seizure date.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that the seized cash should have been adjusted against the tax liability and interest charged accordingly. The assessing officer's failure to credit the seized amount as tax paid led to the dispute. The Tribunal held that interest should be calculated based on the period the funds were held by the government, directing the assessing officer to grant interest on the demand from the date of seizure. This decision overturned the CIT(A)'s orders and allowed the appeals of the respective assessees.

---

---

Issues:
Adjustment of tax on the date of seizure when the returned income has been accepted by the authorities, interest to be allowed u/ss.234A, 234B, and 234C, treatment of seized cash as tax paid, charging of interest by assessing officer, appeal against charging of interest, applicability of judicial pronouncements.

Issue 1: Adjustment of Tax on the Date of Seizure
The appeals raised a common issue regarding the adjustment of tax on the date of seizure when the returned income had been accepted by the authorities. The assessing officer did not give credit to the amount of tax paid by the appellant, seized during the search operation, resulting in the charging of interest u/s.234B and 234C. The appellants requested the seized amount to be treated as tax paid, but the assessing officer ignored this request and demanded an amount including interest. The seized cash was disclosed as income, and the appellant claimed it as payment of self-assessment tax, yet the assessing officer did not credit this amount, leading to the dispute.

Issue 2: Charging of Interest and Appeal Against It
The assessing officer charged interest u/s.234B for non-payment of advance tax, despite the appellant's cooperation throughout the process. The appellant filed an appeal against this assessment, but the CIT(A) confirmed the order, stating that the levy of interest is mandatory and the assessing officer has no discretion to waive it off. The appellant argued that the interest charged was appealable, citing various judicial pronouncements where interest was adjusted against advance tax liability. The appellant contended that the cash seized should have been treated as advance tax, and interest should have been calculated accordingly.

Issue 3: Applicability of Judicial Pronouncements
The appellant relied on several judicial pronouncements to support their case, emphasizing the adjustment of seized cash against advance tax liability. Cases such as Shri Ram Sarda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Satya Prakash Sharma vs. ACIT highlighted the importance of adjusting seized cash against advance tax and recomputing interest accordingly. Other cases like CIT vs. Ashok Kumar and Sudhakar M. Shetty vs. ACIT emphasized the adjustment of seized cash towards pending demands and tax liabilities. The appellant argued that the assessing officer should have followed these precedents in their case.

Judgment
After considering the arguments and precedents cited, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal noted that the assessing officer failed to adjust the seized cash against the tax liability despite the appellant's request. The Tribunal emphasized that interest u/ss.234A, 234B, and 234C should be mandatorily charged but calculated based on the period when the funds were held by the government. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and directed the assessing officer to grant interest on the demand raised against the amount adjusted from the date of seizure, as requested by the appellants. Consequently, the appeals of the respective assessees were allowed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of adjustment of tax on the date of seizure, charging of interest, and the applicability of judicial pronouncements in resolving the dispute between the appellants and the assessing officer.

---