9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 906X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment or re-assessment or by final order of assessment or re-assessment, the existing liability of a previous time is only quantified and not a creation of liability on the date of passing of the assessment order - the retained amount also required to be given adjustment against the then liability of the assessee, which has been quantified subsequently by the order of assessment and re-assessment - This fact finds support of sub-section (4) of Section 132B, which for excess amount retained by the revenue, the Central Government shall pay the interest – thus, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was liable for interest u/s 139(8)/217 for the AY 1988-1989 and interest u/s 234A & 234B for the AY 1989-1990 up-to 26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d interest under Section 139(8) and 217 for the assessment year 1988-89 and under Section 234A and 234B for the assessment year 1989-90. In the appeal preferred by the assessee, the C.I.T.(Appeals) held in order dated 27.7.1992 that the department since had money with it from 6.7.1989, therefore, that money is required to be adjusted against the assessed liability from the date the money was seized and, therefore, from that date (7.7.1989) the assessee was not required to pay the interest. The finding of this appellate order dated 27.7.1992 was reversed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 18.6.1997 on appeal preferred by the Revenue. Therefore, an application was submitted by the assessee for referring the question of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8) 62 TTJ (Mumbai) 98 and Vipul D. Doshi Vs. ACIT reported in (2001) 118 Taxman 30 (Mum). 5.5.Learned counsel for the Revenue, Sri Deepak Roshan, submitted that the amount could have been adjusted only after passing of the assessment order and before that amount could not have been given any adjustment. 6.6.We considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case as well as relevant provisions of law. It appears from Section 132(5) that where any money is seized under sub-section(1) or sub-section(1A) of Section 132, the Income Tax Officer is required to give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the persons concerned and as per sub-clause(i) for estimating the undisclosed income in a summary m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ards the discharge of the existing liability referred to in clause (iii) of sub-section (5) of that section exceeds the aggregate of the amounts required to meet the liabilities referred to in clause (i)of sub-section (1) of Section 132B. Therefore, the scheme of the Act clearly suggests that the money seized during the course of the search is retained by the Revenue for the liability of the assessee which may be determined finally by the assessment or re-assessment or by final order of assessment or re-assessment, the existing liability of a previous time is only quantified and not a creation of liability on the date of passing of the assessment order. Therefore, the retained amount also required to be given adjustment against the then lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
