TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 798
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- and jewellery worth Rs. 56,36,873/- were found. The cash was seized and a pay orders of Rs. 58,00,860/- dated 19.1.2012 was given to the search team for non seizure of jewellary. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income on 25.7.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 2,90,54,548/- showing therein the undisclosed cash and jewellery as has been found during the course of search. The AO issued statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) which were served upon the assessee. The AO after considering the submissions and averments of the assessee framed the assessee vide assessment order dated 30.3.2014 by framing the assessment at Rs. 2,96,30,650/- without allowing any credit in the advance tax of cash seized of Rs. 17,50,000/- and pay order of Rs. 58,00,860/- given to search team while calculating interest u/s 234B/234C of the Act despite the fact that the assessee by way of written communications requested the department to treat the same as payment towards advances of tax. It is pertinent to note that the cash seized on 24.11.2011 and pay orders dated 19.1.2012 were declared by the assessee in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) on 19.1.2012. The assessee disclosed income and o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Act, 1974 (45 of 1974) and the amount of the liability determined on completion of the assessment u/s 153A and the assessment of the year relevant to the previous year in which search is initiated or requisition is made, or the amount of liability determined on completion of the assessment under Chapter XIVB for the block period, as the case may be (including any penalty levied or interest payable in connection with such assessment) and in respect of which such person is in default or is deemed to be in default, or the amount of liability arising on an application made before the Settlement Commission under sub-section (1) of section 245C may be recovered out of such assets . ........ ... 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. " From above, it is noted that the Explanation 2 clarifies the meaning of "existing liability appearing in the section 132B and this would become part and parcel of the provisions from the date of provision itself. In this regard reliance is placed on the Apex Court decision in the case of Bengal Imm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s appellate order. Accordingly these grounds are dismissed on above terms. Dismissed." 4. The ld.AR vehemently submitted before us that the order of the ld.CIT(A) is wrong as it is passed without following the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and other High Courts including the orders of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal on the subject. The ld. AR submitted that during the search proceedings conducted at the business premises of the assessee u/s 132(1) of the Act on 24.11.2011, the revenue seized cash of Rs. 17,50,000/- and on the same date some jewelry worth Rs. 56,36,873/- were found for for which the assessee has given pay order of Rs. 58,00,860/- on 19.1.2012 for non seizure closing jewellery/ornaments and silver articles. The ld. AR submitted that the income has been offered to tax in the return of income filed u/s 139 on 25.7.2012 and therefore the pay order and cash which was already taken into possession by the department should have been adjusted towards the advance of tax liability of the assessee. The ld. AR while referring to the pages 10 to 15 of the paper book submitted that the assessee has specifically requested "The Assistant Director of Income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... orders relied upon by the ld.AR. The undisputed facts of the case are that the cash of Rs. 17,50,000/- and jewellery worth Rs. 56,36,873/- were found during search proceedings on 24.11.2011. The said cash was seized and a pay order Rs. 58,00860/- dated 19.01.2012 was given to the search team in lieu of non seizure of jewellery. The assessee filed return of income on 25.7.2012 offering the cash seized and jewelry in the said income. The assessee has specifically requested to The Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv) Unit VIII(2), Mumbai vide letter dated 13.2.2012, The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 13(2), Mumbai, vide letter dated 14.3.2012, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-IV, Mumbai, vide letter dated 12.11.2013 to adjust/allow credit in the advance tax of money lying with the department. However the AO did not heed to the assessee and no credit of Rs. 75,50,860/- was allowed resulting into interest being charged u/s 234B and 234C. Having discussed all the facts, we are of he considered view that he money lying with the department amounting to Rs. 75,50,860/- deserved to be adjusted as advance tax liability and the interest charged under section 234C qua third....