TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been filed with the delay of seven days. Petition seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeals citing reasons for delay in filing of appeals have been filed. The petitions are supported by the affidavits of respective assessees. After perusal of same, we are satisfied that the delay in filing of the appeals have been sufficiently explained. The delay in filing of the appeals is condoned. The appeals are admitted to be heard on merits. 3. The facts in brief as applicable to all the three appeals are as under. The assessees are in the business of silver ornaments. A search u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') was conducted on 08-11-2010 at the common premises of the following four persons: i.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer the request was made on 25-09-2012 during the course of proceedings. Therefore, the request of assessees to adjust seized cash towards advance tax cannot be accepted for the AY.2011-12. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(Appeals), the assessees have come up in appeal in their respective case before the Tribunal. 4. Shri S.P.Ramkumar, appearing on behalf of the assessees submitted that the observation of the CIT(Appeals) that the request was made on 25-09-2012 to adjust the seized cash towards the tax liability is wrong. The assessees jontly made request on 16- 11-2010 before Dy.Director, Investigations, Salem. Thereafter, on 30-11-2010, the assessees made request before the Assessing Officer to adjust the seized amount toward....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on 16.5.2007 and Rs.31 lakhs paid on 17.8.2007. The seized amount shall be treated as advance tax paid on 16.5.2007 itself. The sum of Rs.31 lakhs will be treated as advance tax paid on 17.8.2007. The interest shall be reworked on the above lines". 23. The contention of the assessee regarding levy of interest under sec.234B is thus accepted. 24. On the same analogy of the above discussion made in respect of sec.234B, it is to be held that while computing interest under sec.234A it is necessary to give credit for the above stated two amounts paid prior to the completion of the assessment. This principle has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranoy Roy And Another v. CIT (309 ITR 231). 25. Therefore, while computin....