TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rities below are that a search and seizure action was initiated in the case of Shri D.K. Shivakumar on 2.8.2017. Consequently, the premises of the assessee was also searched on the same day, during which certain incriminating documents pertaining to the present assessee were found. The case of the assessee was thereafter centralized with DCIT, Central Circle 1(4), Bengaluru by order dated 7.3.2018 of the PCIT, Bengaluru. It is pertinent to note here that during the course of search certain cash amounting to Rs 6.68 Crore was unearthed, by the department. Explaining the ownership of the cash the assessee initially disposed that the same was pertaining to Mr. D.K. Shivkumar. 4. Thereafter the assessee filed his return of income on 14.6.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 15,88,07,660. It is pertinent to note that while filing the ROI the assessee offered the amount of cash seized as his income. Thereafter, various notices were issued by the AO at the time of assessment proceedings. In response to the notices of the AO, the counsel for the assessee had appeared on 19.11.2019, 22.11.2019, 03.12.2019, 09.12.2019 & 16.12.2019 and made submissions and filed replies with the AO. It is al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hence dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 9. Aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has come up in appeals before the Tribunal challenging the orders of the ld. CIT(A). 10. The ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. Finding of the Bench on ITA Number 196/Ban/2022 11. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. When the impugned proceedings before the Tribunal were pending, the assessee filed Writ Petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka pertaining to AYs 2015-16 to 2018- 19 inter alia challenging various legal issues such as validity of notice u/s. 153C, etc. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court vide order dated 17.8.2022 has observed as under :- "27. Taking into the account the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, the points for determination is answered in favour of petitioner. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (1) Writ Petitions No. 9937, 9938 and 9939 of 2022 are allowed and impugned Notices dated 21st August, 2019 and further proceedings thereof are quashed by remanding the matter to the respondent-Revenue to reconsider the issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Nos.9937/2022 C/w. W.P.Nos.9938/2022, 9939/ 2022, 9945/2022 and 9946/2022 is hereby confirmed." 13. Perusal of the above findings of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court would show that the Hon'ble High Court was please to hold that notices u/s. 153C is bad in law. However, in WP No.9946/2022 which is related to the impugned assessment year, the Hon'ble High Court after quashing the earlier order has remanded the matter to the revenue for deciding it afresh in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court. 14. Perusal of the above findings would prove beyond doubt that the impugned order of the AO dated 31.12.2019 is no more in existence, as the Hon'ble High Court has already quashed the assessment order. Therefore, the 154 orders passed by the revenue vide order dated 17.9.2020 & 20.2.2020 are also non-est as the same are passed in consequence to an order which is already set aside by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. 15. Now coming to the next issue i.e., treatment of cash seized from the premises of the assessee, we would like to mention the following observations of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court wherein in para 52 of its order is as follo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) were not before the Hon'ble High Court in writ petitions. 19. However, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the assessee failed to pay the admitted tax before the filing of the present appeal. 20. Now the assessee has come up in appeal inter alia contending that the ld. CIT(A) is not correct in dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 21. The ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below. 22. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In ITA No.196/Bang/2022 (supra), we have already held that the cash seized from the premises of assessee is to be adjusted against the tax liability of the assessee and hence we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) was not correct in dismissing the appeal of the assessee for want of deposit of tax. 23. However, even if we condone the mistake committed by the ld. CIT(A), the fact of the matter is that whether the assessee is entitled to deduction of employees contribution of PF & ESI amount paid beyond the due date specified under the relevant regulations, is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Civil Appeal number ....