2014 (11) TMI 977 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of interest under section 234B - Provisions of section 132B of the Income-tax Act seized cash - Held that - Any infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to reduce the interest under section 234B of the Income-tax Act. It is not in dispute that the assessee made a request for adjustment of cash so seized towards advance tax instalments. The issue is now settled by the hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in favour of the assessee in the case of Arun Kapoor (2010 (7) TMI 610 - Punjab and Haryana High Court). Merely because the special leave petition of the Department is pending before the hon ble Supreme Court, is no ground to show disregard to the judgment of the hon ble High Court. The authorities below are bound to follow the decision of the hon ble High Court. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee by following the judgment of the hon ble jurisdictional High Court - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Adjustment of seized amount towards advance tax liability under section 234B of the Income-tax Act.
2. Interpretation of section 132B(1) regarding adjustment of seized cash against advance tax liability.
3. Compliance with High Court judgments in similar cases and the impact of pending special leave petition.

Issue 1: Adjustment of Seized Amount Towards Advance Tax Liability:
The appeal concerned the adjustment of a seized amount towards advance tax liability under section 234B of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer had charged interest under section 234B, refusing to adjust the seized cash against the advance tax liability. The appellant contended that the amount seized should be adjusted towards advance tax instalments, citing a request made to the Department for such adjustment. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to accept the application for adjustment, following the judgment in the case of Arun Kapoor, which allowed adjustment of seized amount towards advance tax liability.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 132B(1) Regarding Adjustment of Seized Cash:
The disagreement centered on the interpretation of section 132B(1) concerning the adjustment of seized cash against advance tax liability. The Revenue argued that advance tax liability was not included in existing liability under this section. However, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) found that the seized cash should have been adjusted as requested by the assessee to meet the advance tax obligations. Citing judgments from the hon'ble Bombay High Court and the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, it was concluded that section 132B(1) did not prohibit utilizing seized amount for advance tax liability adjustment.

Issue 3: Compliance with High Court Judgments and Pending Special Leave Petition:
The case also involved compliance with High Court judgments and the impact of a pending special leave petition. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) emphasized the importance of following the decision of the hon'ble High Court, directing the Assessing Officer to reduce the interest under section 234B in line with the judgment in favor of the assessee. The dismissal of the Departmental appeal was based on the settled issue by the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, despite the pending special leave petition before the hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the decision.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal upheld the decision of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to reduce the interest under section 234B in favor of the assessee, following the judgment of the hon'ble High Court. The dismissal of the Revenue's appeal was based on the settled issue and the obligation to adhere to the High Court's decision, irrespective of the pending special leave petition.