9911796707
TMI BlogRelease of assets held as disclosed - order u/s.132(5).X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e I.T.Act. Such seized assets which are held, in the order u/s.132(5) as disclosed may be retained and adjusted against the existing tax liabilities as referred to in clause (iii) of sec.132(5) and the balance should be released to the person from whom the seizure was made, unless he gives his consent in writing to its retention for adjustment against the liability which may be determined on completion of the regular assessment or reassessment. It is clarified that the assets held as disclosed should not be retained against the liabilities determined under clauses (ii) and (iia) of section 132(5). In a case where the seized assets are held to belong to a third person, the ITO may proceed against the real owner of seized assets u/s.132(7) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilities in a firms case. In the case of a search in a firm's case it has been noticed that the liabilities of the partners are occassionally being included by the ITOs in determining the total liability of the assessee firm u/s.132(5) which envisages an estimate of the undisclosed income of the person concerned. The total liability in the case of an unregistered firm will be the tax on such undisclosed income plus interest payable penalty imposable and existing liability if any of the firm alone. In the case of a registered firm, taxes are charged not only in the hands of the firm but also in the hands of the partners. The amount of tax on the estimated undisclosed income of the firm will, therefore be borne in the case of a registered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness of an assessee may get paralysed by reason of the seizure of assets. Prompt action should be taken on requests for release of seized assets in such cases so as to eliminate avoidable complaints of delay and harassment, without prejudice to the interest of the revenue. A question has been raised as to whether an offer of security of immovable property by way of deposit of title deeds constitutes satisfactory arrangements for payment of the amount due under the Act. The Ministry of law have advised that by merely offering immovable property as security for payment, it cannot be said that satisfactory arrangements for the payment of the amount are made by the person concerned under the second proviso to sec.132(5). 6) Jurisdiction o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
