9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (11) TMI 480 - AT - Income TaxSearch and seizure - unexplained cash found and seized as well as the pay orders - interest u/s 234B and 234C - Held that - It is an undisputed fact that the unexplained cash and jewellery were seized from the partners of the assessee firm and not from the assessee. Therefore the unexplained cash and jewellery seized during the course of search and seizure action has to be adjusted against the tax liability if any of the partners at the first place and if any amount remains as surplus the same has either to be refunded or adjusted against tax liability of the other co-assessee if so requested/consented. The assets seized from other persons cannot be adjusted against the advance tax demand of the appellant unless their assessment is completed u/s. 143(3) and there is no liability against them. Further request for adjustment of the amount of PD has been made by the partners after the date of payment of advance tax. Therefore the request so made would be considered only against the regular and final tax liability of the assessee and not against the advance tax liability. Therefore interest u/s 234B & 234C are rightly charged - Decided in favor of Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Credit for Rs. 57,86,000/- as advance tax. 2. Credit for Rs. 95,00,000/- as advance tax. 3. Charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Credit for Rs. 57,86,000/- as Advance Tax: The assessee firm contested the non-allowance of credit for Rs. 57,86,000/- seized during the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that this amount should be treated as advance tax. The search conducted on 6.11.2006 resulted in the seizure of cash from the business and residential premises of the partners. The firm filed its return declaring an income of Rs. 11,81,10,270/- and subsequently requested the adjustment of the seized amount as advance tax. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected this request, and the CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the cash was seized from the partners and not from the firm. Therefore, it had to be adjusted against the partners' tax liabilities first. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A), emphasizing that the seized assets must be used to settle the liabilities of the person from whom they were seized before considering any surplus for the firm's liabilities. 2. Credit for Rs. 95,00,000/- as Advance Tax: The assessee also sought credit for Rs. 95,00,000/- in pay orders voluntarily offered by the partners in lieu of unexplained jewellery found during the search. The firm requested that this amount be treated as advance tax. However, the CIT(A) and AO did not adjust this amount as advance tax, treating it instead as regular tax paid. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the jewellery and corresponding pay orders were linked to the partners, not the firm. The adjustment of such amounts against the firm's tax liabilities was contingent upon the completion of the partners' assessments and determination of any surplus. 3. Charging of Interest under Sections 234B and 234C: The assessee challenged the charging of interest under sections 234B and 234C, arguing that the seized amounts should have been adjusted as advance tax, which would negate the interest liabilities. The Tribunal examined the relevant provisions and previous case laws cited by the assessee. It concluded that the seized amounts could not be automatically treated as advance tax for the firm, given that they were seized from the partners. The Tribunal emphasized that section 132B outlines the application of seized assets, which must first address the liabilities of the person from whom the assets were seized. Only after settling those liabilities could any surplus be considered for the firm's tax liabilities. Consequently, the interest under sections 234B and 234C was rightly charged as the seized amounts were not adjusted as advance tax. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the amounts seized from the partners could not be treated as advance tax for the firm. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, and the interest charged under sections 234B and 234C was deemed appropriate given the circumstances.
|
