TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en preferred by Roxy Industrial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Assessee'). 2. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the Assessee and the residential premises of its partners. The books of accounts, valuables, cash, locker keys etc. were seized by the Department, including silver articles weighing 16 kg and gold jewellery weighing 3276 gms which were recovered from the bank lockers of one of the partners of the Assessee. To cut the matter short, it was after a prolonged litigation that the Assessee approached the Settlement Commission for settlement of the dispute and pursuant thereto the Settlement Commission passed order dated 31.10.1996, raising a demand of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....32-B(3) taken by the Commissioner in not correct. The above provision does not exclude consideration of discharge of liability of the department nor arrangement if any between a person from whom assets may have been seized and any other person. 7. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and direct respondent No. 1 to pass a fresh order taking into account the aspect of discharge of existing liability of the department in view of statement that value of the goods is much more than the dues of the department. The alleged understanding reached by respondent No. 2 with the petitioner after the seizure of the articles may also be looked into. It may be made clear that release of goods will be subject to adjustment of rights of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ivil Courts at Ludhiana, in which the issue of ownership of the firm is also statedly involved. Both of them, however, assail the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana in so far as it imposes the interest liability on the assessee. 8. We find from the impugned order that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana, has proceeded on the premise that provisions of Section 220(2) are mandatory in nature and that there is no power either with the ITO or the Commissioner to waive off or reduce the amount of interest which becomes due in view of the provisions of sub- Section (2) of S. 220 of the Act. 9. In our considered view, the above given reasoning by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhian....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interest liability is contrary to the Statute as sub-section (2A) of Section 220 of the Act which came into force w.e.f. 1.10.1984 expressly vests such power with the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner of Income Tax, though it is a different issue that the facts and circumstances of a case may or may not justify the exercise of such power. 12. Consequently and for the reasons afore-stated, we set aside the order dated 11.3.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana and remit the case to the said Authority for re-determination within the meaning of Section 220(2) read with subsection (2A) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax, needless to say, shall bear the parties and assign reasons within the ....