TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (8) TMI 283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sic-seized) during the search and seizure operations under s. 132 as advance tax and interest under s. 234B and 234C in violation of the provisions of s. 132B of the IT Act, 1961". 3. The facts of this appeal are that a search and seizure operation was carried out on18th Feb., 1993at the business premises of the assessee and at the residential premises of its partners. From the residential premises of its partner, following unexplained assets were found and seized by the search party: &n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; ---------- Total amount 65.00 lacs ---------- 4. Before the CIT(A), assessee has taken the ground that the amount of ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng on that date. 7. We have examined the facts of this ground of appeal and are of the opinion that the amount of cash seized under s. 132 is to be appropriated as per the provisions of s. 132B. The decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court is fully applicable to this case wherein it has been held "that irrespective of the seizure the petitioners were obliged to pay advance-tax in accordance with law and if they had not paid the advance tax in accordance with the provisions of the IT Act, they could not avoid the liability either under s. 234B or 234C". Keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, we feel that the action of the CIT(A) on this account was not justified and, therefore, the order passed by him is rever....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such levy and when these sections were not attracted on the facts of the case at all." 9.1. Since the additional ground being taken by the assessee is purely a legal point and no further investigation/verification is required, the same is allowed to be taken. 10. In regard to Grounds No. 1, 2 and 3 of the grounds taken in the course of appeal, the same relate to the treatment given by the AO and the CIT(A) to the amount seized and surrendered in the statement under s. 132(4) as income from other sources rather than income from business. In this connection, learned authorised representative submits that the income of Rs. 65,50,000 was voluntarily surrendered during the course of statement recorded under s. 132(4) r/w Explanation 5 to s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... therefore, allowance under s. 80-IA should have been allowed. On this account, the learned authorised representative also relies upon the various case laws including CIT vs. Rajshree Cinema (P) Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 76 (MP) wherein it has been held that there is no other source of income where-from the assessee could earn income, the amount so found should be treated as income from business. Further reliance was placed on the decision in the case of Daulat Ram Rawat Mal vs. CIT (1967) 64 ITR 593 (Cal), Lakhmi Chand Baijnath vs. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 416 (SC) and Mansfield & Sons vs. CIT (1963) 48 ITR 254 (Cal). 12. Learned Departmental Representative while strongly relying upon the order passed by the AO and the CIT(A), submitted that on the ....