9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee and the assessment proceedings were completed vide assessment order dated 31-12-2007. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed order u/s. 154 of the Act upon the assessee observing that on verification of the records, it is noticed that the assessee had claimed Rs.39 lakh which was seized from the premises of its directors, Shri Lalit K Patel and Shri Kantibhai M Patel in their return of income filed in pursuance of notice u/s 153A. This amount was inadvertently treated as self-assessment during the course of passing order u/s. 143(1) dated 14-03-2007 and mistake also crept into while passing order u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) Dated 31-12-2007 since none appeared on behalf of the assessee it is presumed that the assessee has nothin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court in the case of Ramjilal Jagannath & Ors. V. ACIT (2000) 241 ITR 758 (MP) and also relied on the order passed by the Ld. ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Shri Mahavir Prasad Gupta v. DCIT in ITA No.1151/Del/2008 order dated 14-10-2011. Ld. DR argued that the credit of the seized cash is not automatic and the Assessing Officer has no power to deal unless a representation is made by the assessee in this respect. He further argued that the aforementioned judgments as relied by him supports his contention. Therefore, the credit of advance tax for the 22-09-2005 to 30-05-2006 would not available to the Respondent/assessee 6. On the contrary, Ld. AR argued that the case law relied upon by the Ld. DR was on the peculiarity of facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etermined on completion of the assessment under Chapter XIV-B for the block period, as the case may be] (including any penalty levied or interest payable in connection with such assessment) and in respect of which such person is ins default or is deemed to be in default, may be recovered out of such assets: [Provided that where the person concerned makes an application to the Assessing Officer within thirty days from the end of the month in which the asset was seized, for release of asset and the nature and source of acquisition of any such asset is explained] to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, the amount of any existing liability referred to in this clause may be recovered out of such asset and the remaining portion, if any, of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n from the assessee. Now coming to the fact of the present case, it is not disputed that the money seized from the premises of Shri Lalit Patel and same was subsequently declared in the return of income filed on 31-05-2006. Hence, it can very well be inferred from the return so filed that the respondent/assessee was required to pay advance tax on such income as mandated u/s 208 of the IT Act. Therefore, in view of the fact that there is no ambiguity in the provision so far application/adjustment of the seized money is concerned. Further, the judgments as relied upon by the Ld. DR would not apply on the facts and circumstances of the present case since this is not a case where application u/s. 132(5) is made. Moreover, Section 132(5) is no m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
