TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of assesses on self-assessment vs. advance tax distinction</h1> <h3>Anand Kumar Jain, C/o. Katrapati & Associates, Pramod Kumar Jain, C/o. Katrapati & Associates, Mahaveer Kumar Jain, C/o. Katrapati & Associates, Hyderabad Versus The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 3 (3), Hyderabad.</h3> Anand Kumar Jain, C/o. Katrapati & Associates, Pramod Kumar Jain, C/o. Katrapati & Associates, Mahaveer Kumar Jain, C/o. Katrapati & Associates, Hyderabad ... Issues:Appeal against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad's orders for A.Y. 2018-19 involving proceedings u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Analysis:1. Adjustment of Seized Cash: The lead assessee's appeal raised the issue of adjusting seized cash towards self-assessment tax for charging interest u/s 234B. The appellant contended that the seized cash should be treated as self-assessment tax, not subject to interest u/s 234B. The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's rectification action, emphasizing that advance tax cannot be adjusted against seized cash. The CBDT's circular clarified that advance tax is not included in existing liability under Section 132B. The Explanation 2 to Section 132B excludes advance tax from existing liability. The appellate tribunal held in favor of the assessee, citing the mistake apparent on record and strict interpretation of legal principles.2. Application of Section 154 Jurisdiction: The tribunal analyzed whether the lower authorities correctly invoked section 154 rectification to recompute interest under section 234B. Referring to legal precedents, including T.S. Balram Vs M/s. Volkart Brothers, the tribunal concluded that the lower authorities erred in invoking section 154 jurisdiction. The tribunal accepted the assessee's appeal, emphasizing the distinction between self-assessment tax and advance tax under Section 132B Explanation 2.3. Prospective Application of Explanation 2 to Section 132B: The CBDT's circular clarified that Explanation 2 to Section 132B has prospective application from 01.06.2013. The tribunal noted that the Explanation was in force during the seizure on 21.11.2017. Legal precedents supported the prospective nature of the Explanation. The tribunal upheld the assessee's position, highlighting the unambiguous provisions of Section 132B and its explanations.4. Final Decision: The tribunal allowed the appeals of all three assesses, following the decision in the lead assessee's case. The tribunal emphasized the distinction between self-assessment tax and advance tax, ruling in favor of the assessee based on legal principles and precedents. The orders were pronounced on 29th November 2021, granting relief to the assesses in all three cases.This detailed analysis highlights the key legal arguments, interpretations of relevant sections, and the tribunal's decision in favor of the appellants based on the specific circumstances and legal principles involved in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
