TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 7
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The assessee raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal. "1 The order passed u/s.250 on 19.3.13 for A.Y.2009-10 by CIT(A)-I, Abad upholding the order passed u/s.154 by AO on 9.3.12 is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. C1T(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the submissions made and evidence produced by the appellant. 2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in rejecting the rectification application u/s.154 of the appellant to treat the advance tax payable for A.Y.2009-10 as "existing liability" u/s.132B(l)(i) and charge interest u/s.234B and 234C accordingly. 2.2 That in the facts and circum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e submissions of the appellant filed in the statement of facts carefully. The procedure of treatment of seized cash is described in section 132B of the IT Act. The seized cash may represent the income of the appellant but it cannot be appropriated towards any tax liability. The seized cash can be appropriated against any existing liability under the IT, WT Act etc. and the amount of liability determined on completion of assessment in terms of 132B(1) of the Act. The issue that needs to be decided is as to whether any tax liability can be said to be existing before the determination of such liability by the AO in the assessment order. 5. So far as the liability for advance tax is concerned, it is noted that as interpreted by a few Courts,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4) read with section 209(1)(b) and 209(1)(c) of the Act. However, determination of such advance tax liability by the AO is not mandatory. Further, even otherwise, for the purposes of determining the advance tax liability by the AO, such determination cannot exceed the tax liability as per latest assessed income of the appellant or subsequently filed returned income, whichever is higher. In a search related case, the determination of advance tax liability by the AO may not serve any purpose since he can determine such liability only on the basis of latest assessed income / returned income subsequently filed in terms of section 210(3) / 210(4) of the Act. The AO cannot, therefore, determine the correct advance tax liability of the appellant i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t estimated income including the disclosed income during the course of search and makes specific request to the AO to make necessary adjustment as per the appropriate installments before the installments become due. This is the crux of the judicial decisions relied upon by the appellant. 9. The AO can recover the amount of tax from the seized cash of the appellants only if the tax liability of the appellants exists at the time of such recovery. In the present case, the AO has not determined the advance tax liability of the appellants u/s 210(3) / 210(4) r.w.s 209(1)(b) and 209(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant had also not quantified / determined their tax liability based on its current estimated income. Therefore, no advance tax liability....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with effect from the date of filing of return of income by the appellant. The AO is directed to charge interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act after making above adjustments. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is partly allowed subject to above findings." 5. Heard both the parties strongly reiterating their respective stands. Case file perused. The assessee strongly seeks credit of the above seized cash of Rs. 40lacs advance tax in the impugned assessment year 2009-10 as well as in respect of interest liability u/s.234B & C of the Act. The case file indicates that both the parties have placed on record a plethora of judgments in support of their respective arguments. The lead one appears to be hon'ble jurisdictional high court's judgment in ....