9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 234A, 234B & 234C - Held that:- We are inclined to confirm and approve very well reasoned conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A). This issue, as rightly observed by the learned CIT(A), is now covered in favour of the assessee by a series of judicial precedents, including, such as in the cases of CIT Vs. Ashok Kumar (2010 (9) TMI 771 - Punjab and Haryana High Court ), and CIT Vs. Kesar Kimam Karyalaya (2005 (5) TMI 58 - DELHI High Court ). It is also important to bear in mind that Explanation-2 to Section 132B of the Act, which restricts the scope of existing liability to liabilities other than tax payable, is specifically enacted with effect from 1st June, 2013, whereas at present dealing with Assessment Year 2010-11. Learned Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessee is concerned, relevant material facts are like this. The assessee was subjected to search and seizure operation. During the course of resultant assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that while the assessee has produced books of accounts, and bills and vouchers in support of various expenses, on examination of bills and vouchers, it is seen that some of the vouchers are handmade, and, therefore, considering a fair and reasonable view, 10% of the above expenses, i.e. ₹ 1,70,223/-, is disallowed and added in the income of the assessee . Aggrieved, inter alia, by this disallowance, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who deleted the disallowance and, while doing so, observed as follows:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised the following grievance:- 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing the assessing officer to appropriate the cash seized during the course of search against the advance tax liability and in consequence thereto delete the statutory interests charged u/s 234A, 234B 234C amounting to ₹ 30,90,449/-, ₹ 64,89,943/- and ₹ 11,34,025/- respectively ignoring the legal provisions as contained in section 132B read with Explanation-2 as appearing there under . 8. To adjudicate on this ground, it is sufficient to take note of the fact that during the search and seizure operation on 10.03.2010, cash of ₹ 4,31,36,000/- was seized and deposited in the PD account, out of which, adjustment was s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.2010 to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax which was duly received and also to the Additional Director of Income Tax Investigation, Agra. It also seen that similar request for adjustment letters were written to the DCIT Circle-1, Agra on 29.03.2010 which was duly received in the office on the same day. Further, another letter was written to the CIT-1 on 21.03.2010. Letter dated 05/07/2010 was also written to the DCIT Central Circle stating that return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 had been filed on 30/6/10 with tax payable of ₹ 2,92,25,240/- and therefore requesting the AO once again for adjustment of tax liability with the cash lying in the PD account. In the circumstances, the assessee had done all it could do so as to ensure that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst advance tax liability and therefore, no interest could be charged u/s 234A 234B in the event of the department no responding to assessee s request for adjustment of cash seized against advance tax liability. In view of the following judgments, the action of the AO in charging interest under 234A, 234B 234C is not justified and hence, directed to be deleted. 9. The Assessing Officer is aggrieved of the relief so granted by the CIT(A) and is in appeal before us. 10. Having heard the rival contentions and having perused the material on record, we are inclined to confirm and approve very well reasoned conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A). This issue, as rightly observed by the learned CIT(A), is now covered in favour of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
