2020 (5) TMI 252 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of interest - Cash amount seized during the search operation adjusted against tax/advance tax payable by assessee, with effect from 05.09.2013, i.e. the date of search - HELD THAT - It is one sided approach adopted by the assessee just to cheat the Department by demonstrating that assessee has suo-moto adjusted the seized cash towards his advance tax/tax liability. We note that just to make an entry in the Return of Income, suo-moto , without intimating to the Department, is not a compliance. Hence, it is abundantly clear that assessee had never intimated to the Department that his seized cash should be adjusted against his advance tax/tax liability therefore the Department is entitled to levy the interest on the outstanding demand. In the assessee s case under consideration, we note that assessee has neither offered seized cash during his statement u/s 132(4) nor he intimated to the Department by letter that his seized cash should be adjusted towards his advance tax/tax liability, therefore we do not find merit in these three appeals filed by different assessees, hence we confirm the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Adjustment of cash seized during search operation against tax liability.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by different assessees against separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) arising from orders by the Assessing Officer under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2014-15. The main contention in all appeals was whether the cash amount seized during the search operation should be adjusted against the tax/advance tax payable by the assessee from the date of the search operation. The Tribunal consolidated the appeals due to common issues. The assessee voluntarily offered a significant amount during the search and seizure operation but did not request the seized cash to be adjusted against the tax liability. The Department seized cash during the operation, and the assessee later filed the income tax return without mentioning the adjustment of seized cash. The assessee argued for the adjustment of the seized amount against the tax liability, while the Revenue opposed, stating the lack of formal intimation for adjustment.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions, documents, and relevant case laws. It noted that the assessee did not formally request the adjustment of seized cash against the tax liability to the Department. The Tribunal found the assessee's unilateral adjustment in the income tax return without prior intimation insufficient for compliance. Referring to a similar case, the Tribunal highlighted that specific application or formal request for adjustment is necessary. The Tribunal also cited another case where the court allowed adjustment of seized cash towards advance tax liability upon formal request. In the present case, the Tribunal concluded that since the assessee did not intimate the Department for adjusting the seized cash against tax liability, interest could be levied on the outstanding demand. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees for the assessment year 2014-15, confirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld that the seized cash could not be adjusted against the tax liability as the assessee did not formally request the adjustment to the Department. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of formal communication for such adjustments and cited relevant case laws supporting the requirement for specific applications in similar situations. As a result, the appeals by the assessees were dismissed, and the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was confirmed.