9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Adjustment of seized cash against the advance tax liability for the purpose of computation of interest leviable under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Adjustment of Seized Cash Against Advance Tax Liability: The core issue in these appeals is whether the cash seized during a search operation can be adjusted against the advance tax liability of the assessees as requested by them before the passing of the order under section 132(5). The search and seizure operation conducted on 14th December 1994 resulted in the seizure of Rs. 12,90,000. The assessees declared their undisclosed income on 16th December 1994 and requested that the tax on this income be adjusted from the seized cash. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an order under section 132(5) on 11th April 1995, estimating the income and adjusting the seized cash against the tax liability. Issue 2: Plea of Assessees and AO's Decision: During the assessment proceedings, the assessees argued that the seized cash should be adjusted against the advance tax liability, and no interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C should be charged. The AO, however, did not accept this plea and charged interest without adjusting the seized cash. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], however, ruled in favor of the assessees, directing the AO to treat the seized cash as advance tax payment from December 1994 and recompute the interest accordingly. Issue 3: Revenue's Appeal and Legal Precedents: The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, arguing that the request for adjustment made on 16th December 1994 was premature as the AO could not adjust the seized cash before passing the order under section 132(5). The Revenue relied on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ramjilal Jagannath & Ors. vs. Asstt. CIT, which held that the AO could not adjust seized money against advance tax liability before passing the final order under section 132(5). Issue 4: Assessees' Counterarguments and Tribunal's Precedents: The assessees' counsel argued that the request for adjustment was made when the cash was available with the Department and cited various Tribunal decisions supporting their contention. The counsel emphasized that the levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C is compensatory in nature and should not be charged when the Department had the seized cash. Issue 5: Tribunal's Analysis and Conclusion: The Tribunal considered the submissions and relevant material, noting that the main issue was whether the seized cash could be adjusted against the advance tax liability before the order under section 132(5). The Tribunal observed that the provisions of section 132(5) stipulate that the seized assets cannot be dealt with until the AO makes an order under that section. Therefore, the adjustment of seized cash against advance tax liability before passing the order under section 132(5) was not permissible. The Tribunal referred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in Ramjilal Jagannath & Ors. vs. Asstt. CIT, which clarified that the AO could not adjust seized money against advance tax liability before the final order under section 132(5). The Tribunal found that the earlier Tribunal decisions cited by the assessees did not consider this legal position. Issue 6: Compensatory Nature of Interest and Legislative Intent: The Tribunal acknowledged the compensatory nature of interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, as established by various court decisions. However, it emphasized that the compensatory nature should be viewed in a broader context, considering the legislative intent behind these provisions. The Tribunal concluded that the provisions of sections 234A, 234B, and 234C are in consonance with legislative intentions and should be strictly construed. Final Decision: The Tribunal held that the seized cash could not be adjusted against the advance tax liability for the financial year 1994-95, as the order under section 132(5) was passed only on 11th April 1995. The seized cash should be treated as self-assessment tax paid on 11th April 1995. Consequently, the interest under section 234A should be computed without considering the seized cash, while interest under section 234B should be computed after giving credit for the seized cash as self-assessment tax. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and directed the AO to recompute the interest accordingly, allowing the Revenue's appeals.
|
