TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1434
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. First, we take up the Assessee's appeal, i.e. ITA No.2085/Ahd/2012 for AY 2010-11. The Assessee has raised the following concised common grounds of appeal:- 1) In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax(A) erred in omitting to consider the appellant's ground before him challenging the validity of the rectification order passed u/s.154 of the I.T.Act, 1961. 2) In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.Commissioner of Income-tax(A) erred in not directing the ld.A.O. to make adjustment of the payment made by the appellant towards release of seized valua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (iv) In the returns of income filed by the appellants, the credit of cash seized / payments made for release of gold ornaments have been claimed as payment of Advance tax as on 10-09- 2009 on the date of search. (v) The AO did not consider the seized cash / payment made in October, 2009 for release of jewellery towards payment of any tax liability and accordingly charged interest u/s.234B/234C of the Act while processing the returns u/s.143(1) of the Act. (vi) The appellants filed application u/s.154 of the act for rectification of mistake regarding adjustment of seized cash/ payment made for release of jewellery in October, 2009 against the tax liability of the appellants. (vii) The AO didn't agree to the request of the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh rendered in the case of Ramjilal Jagannath vs. Asst.CIT reported at (2000) 241 ITR 758 (MP) :: (1999) 156 CTR 49(MP). 5. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in ITA No.1172/Rjt/2010 in the case of Shri Ram S.Sarda vs. Dy.CIT(supra) has decided the issue vide paragraph Nos.13 & 14, by observing as under:- "13. Now coming to the second issue whether cash seized could be adjusted against the advance-tax and other demands. To examine this issue we would like to refer to section 132B prior to its substitution with effect from 01-06- 2002 b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y in section 132B(1)(i) cannot be read to exclude a particular tax liability if it can be shown to have existed on a particular date. If the liability to pay the advance-tax had arisen it would certainly constitute a part of existing liability as per section 132B(1)(i). According to the scheme of section 132B, the seized assets to be applied to the discharge of existing liabilities in respect of which the assessee was in default or was deemed to be in default as well as the liability in respect of regular assessment or re-assessment for the years relevant to the previous years to which the income related and in respect of which the assessee was in default or was deemed to be in default. However, during the search, money had been seized and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applicable when interest is to be recovered from the assessee, may be u/s 234A, 234B or 234C. Thus, the cash seized during the course of search is required to be adjusted against taxes due including advance-tax for the purpose of computation of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. This view is fortified by various decisions of ITAT in the case of Satpal D Agarwal, HUF vs ACIT 62 TTJ (Mum) 98; Satyaprakash Sharma vs ACIT 20 DTR (Del Trib) 561; Sudhakar M Shetty vs ACIT 10 DTR (Mum Trib) 173; Nikamal Baburam vs ACIT 41 SOT 407 (Chd) and the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Ashok Kumar 334 ITR 355 (P&H). 14. The ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Sudhakar M Shetty vs ACIT held that the department has to adjust the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench rendered in the case of Shri Ram S.Sarda vs. Dy.CIT(supra). Hence, respectfully following the same, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and direct the AO to make adjustment of payment of Rs.20,55,000/- made by the assessee towards release of seized valuables against the advance tax liability for the assessment year under consideration. Thus, ground No.2 of the assessee's appeal is allowed. 6. In the result, assessee's appeal in ITA No.2085/Ahd/2012 for AY 2010-11 is allowed. 7. Now, we take up the second appeal of the assessee, i.e. ITA No.2086/Ahd/2012 for AY 2010-11. The Assessee has raised the following concised common grounds of appeal:- 1) In law and in the facts and circumstances of the ....