TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20/-. 4. During the course of search proceedings, cash of Rs 43 lacs was seized. Assessee vide his letter dated 13.3.2007 submitted that out of the total cash seized, Rs 10 lacs be treated towards payment of advance tax in the case of assessee and similarly balance of Rs.33 lacs be treated towards payment of advance tax in case of family members/group companies. 5. AO passed rectification order u/s 154 on 12.2.2009 for the reason that while working out the tax liability pursuant to order passed u/s 143(3), Assessee was granted credit of Rs 10 lacs (being the seized cash). According to the AO "this was not permissible unless and until it is adjusted". He accordingly disallowed the credit for Rs 10 lacs. Against the aforesaid order passed by Assessing Officer, Assessee filed application dated 26.3.2010 u/s 154 wherein inter alia it was submitted that the amount of Rs 10 lacs be treated as tax paid from the date on which the application has been made for adjustment against the advance tax liability and no interest u/s 234B and 234C be levied. The contention of the Assessee was not found acceptable to the AO. He vide order dated 19.10.2010 rejected the application of Assessee by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee were not liable to pay interest under section 234B or 234C also could not be accepted and the amount/assets seized could not be appropriated towards the advance tax and the assessee could not escape his liability either under 234B or 234C. Irrespective of the seizure of the amount, the assessee was obliged to pay the advance tax in accordance with law and if he had not paid the advance tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act, he could not avoid the liability either under section 234B or section 234C. 8. Considering the above facts of the case and the conflicting decisions given by the Hon'ble courts in favour and against the assessee as enumerated above, the request made by the assessee for rectification cannot be entertained as the mistake cannot be termed as mistake apparent from records and therefore, stands rejected". 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of Assessing Officer, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A). CIT(A) vide-order dated 19.8.2011 dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by holding as under:- 3 During the appellate proceedings the director of the company Shri Balesh Mehta attended and filed the writt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd thus the issue is also covered in its favour by the decision of Ahmedabad tribunal in the case of its sister concern, M/s Shreeji Prints (P.) Ltd. (ITA No 359/A/2012). He also placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Sudhakar Shetty v. ACIT [2008] 10 DTR (Mum)(Trib) 173 and in the case of CIT v. Kesr Kimam Karyalaya [2005] 278 ITR 596 (Del). 10. The Ld D.R. on the other hand submitted that Finance Act 2013 has inserted an Explanation to s. 132B according to which the existing liability does not include advance tax payable. He thus supported the order of AO and CIT(A). 11. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that during the course of search at the residence of directors on 8.2.2007 and locker on 7.3.2007 aggregate cash of Rs 43 lacs was seized. It is also an undisputed fact that Assessee vide his letter dated 13.3.2007 submitted that out of the cash seized, Rs 10 lacs be treated towards payment of advance tax in the case of assessee and similarly balance of Rs. 33 lacs be treated towards payment of advance tax in case of family members/group companies. It is also a fact that vide aforesaid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case of Shri Ram S. Sarda v. DCIT and the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Sudhakar M. Shetty v. ACIT in ITA No.4238 & 423 9/MUM/2007. Respectfully following the ratio laid therein we do not find any infirmity into the impugned order." 12. Before us, Ld. D.R. has relied on the amendment made to s. 132A vide Finance Bill of 2013, We find that the amendment has been made by insertion of Explanation and the Explanation has been made applicable with effect from 1st June, 2013,. For ready reference, the amendment made by Finance Bill 2013 and the memorandum is reproduced hereunder:- 13. The amendment made by Finance Bill 2013 reads as under:- Amendment of section 132B. 34. In section 132B of the Income-tax Act, the Explanation shall be numbered as explanation 1 thereof and after explanation 1 as so numbered the following explanation shall be inserted with effect from the 1st day of June, 2013, (emphasis supplied) namely:- Explanation 2.-For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that the "existing liability" does not include advance tax payable in accordance with the provisions of Part C of Chapter XVII.' The explanatory me....