TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case reveal that a search was carried out by the income tax authorities under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26-27.06.2002 at the petitioner's premises and during the search certain papers, diaries, Hundis were found in possession of the petitioner. They were seized by the income tax authorities. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the petitioner to file return of income for the block period 01.04.1996 to 26.06.2002. The petitioner has filed return disclosing the undisclosed income of Rs. 49,68,000/- and the tax payable thereon, was worked out to Rs. 30,40,416/-. An assessment order was passed on 17.06.2004 assessing income the income of the petitioner at Rs. 3,26,52,82....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 7 of the impugned order dated 04.12.2018 reads as under:- "4. Opprotunities of being heard were granted to the assessee by this office letters dated 28.02.2018 and 18.09.2018 fixing the case for hearing on 06.03.2018 and 04.10.2018 respectively. Letters were duly served upon the assessee. In compliance to the above letters, Shri I.M. Jain, AR of the assessee attended and filed written submission along with copy of the return of income, assessment orders, CIT(A)'s order, ITAT's order, High Court's order, appeal effect order etc. The AR of the assessee also filed copy of various case laws in his support. It is further contended that after the search & seizure operation, the assessee's only source of income is dalal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nterest cannot be waived. The present case is a case of a assessee, who was a defaulter, who has suppressed his income and only after search and seizure operation, the department was able to find out the concealment of income by the assessee. It is a case of a person, who was with a calculative motive, evading the payment of income tax and in those circumstances, the department has carried out search and seizure operation and was able to unearth the concealed income. It is not a case where on account of some genuine bonafide mistake, the assessee was not able to pay the tax dues. In the present case, it can never be said that the assessee was not able to pay the tax due to the circumstances beyond the control of the of the assessee. It i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rson cannot take advantage of his own wrong, may also have to be borne in mind. The said principle, it is conceded, has not been applied by the courts below in this case, but we may take note of a few precedents operating in the field to highlight the aforementioned proposition of law. [See Priyanka Overseas Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & ors. 1991 Suppl. (1) SCC 102, para 39, Union of India & ors. v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav (Retd.) (1996) 4 SCC 127 at 142, paras 28 and 29, Ashok Kapil v. Sana Ullah (dead) & ors. (1996) 6 SCC 342 at 345, para 7, Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar (2003) 8 SCC 673 at 692, para 65, first sentence, Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & ors. (2007) 11 scc 447, paras 13, 14 and 16). Thus, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee as the levy is a statutory one but it is another thing to say that the said factor shall not be taken into consideration at all for the purpose of exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction on the part of the Commissioner. Appellant volunteered that the securities be sold. Why the said request of the appellant could not be acceded to has not been explained. It was a voluntary act on the part of the appellant. It was not even a case where sub-Section (3) of Section 226 of the Act was resorted to. As the offer was voluntary, the authorities of the Department subject to any statutory interdict could have considered the request of the appellant. It was probably in the interest of the revenue itself to realize its dues. Whet....