Seized funds can offset tax liability without formal request: Tribunal clarifies tax adjustment rules.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that seized money can be adjusted towards advance tax liability without a formal representation from the assessee. The decision emphasized the significance of the assessee's declaration in filing returns and the Assessing Officer's power to make such adjustments based on the Income-tax Act provisions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rectifiability of mistake u/s.154 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Treatment of seized money as advance tax liability.
3. Applicability of judgments on seized cash credit.

Issue 1: Rectifiability of mistake u/s.154:
The appeal concerned a case where a search operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act was conducted, leading to the issuance of a notice u/s.153A to the assessee. The Assessing Officer observed a claimed amount of Rs.39 lakh, seized from the directors' premises, was mistakenly treated as self-assessment during assessment proceedings. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that this was not a rectifiable mistake u/s.154, leading to the Revenue's appeal challenging this decision.

Issue 2: Treatment of seized money as advance tax liability:
The core issue revolved around whether money seized during a search operation could be considered as advance tax liability from the date of seizure. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions under section 132B(1) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing that if the assessee declared the seized money as income and filed returns accordingly, they were liable to pay advance tax. In this case, as the seized money was declared in the return filed post-seizure, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was required to pay advance tax, and the Assessing Officer could adjust the seized money towards the existing liability without a written representation from the assessee.

Issue 3: Applicability of judgments on seized cash credit:
The Revenue relied on judgments from the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the ITAT Delhi Bench to support their argument that seized cash credit is not automatic and requires a representation from the assessee. However, the Tribunal differentiated the facts of those cases from the present one, emphasizing that the seized money, when declared as income, necessitated advance tax payment. The Tribunal cited decisions from the ITAT Rajkot Bench and the ITAT Mumbai Bench, which favored the assessee's position on applying seized money towards advance tax liability. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the order that allowed the seized money to be adjusted towards the advance tax liability.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the treatment of seized money as advance tax liability, highlighting the importance of the assessee's declaration in filing returns and the Assessing Officer's authority to adjust the seized amount towards existing liabilities without the need for a formal representation.

---