9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Mr. A. Srinivas For The Revenue : Mr. M. Sitaram ORDER PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. All are assessee s appeals for the A.Ys. 2006- 2007 to 2009-2010. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that the Registry has raised an objection about a defect that the assessee has not paid the court fee as prescribed under I.T. Rules and that the short payment is of ₹ 9500. 2.1. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessees appeals were dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) in limini on the ground that assessee has not paid the admitted tax and since the appeal was dismissed in limini, the appeal fee payable by the assessee is only ₹ 500. In su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f S.253(6)(d), the Tribunal fee of ₹ 500 only is payable by the assessee where the appeal is preferred against the order of the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine. We accordingly find no merit in the defect pointed out by the Registry, and therefore, proceed to dispose off this appeal on merits. 2.2. Respectfully following the same into consideration, we hold that the objection of the Registry is not maintainable. 2.3. Coming to the appeals filed by the assessee, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that for the A.Y. 2007-08, assessee had returned a sum of ₹ 20,17,240 and the income assessed was also ₹ 20,17,240 as is evident from the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment has already seized and recovered a total sum of ₹ 21,93,700 whereas the total admitted tax including the interest for the above three years was ₹ 21,61,594. He has submitted that the A.O. may be directed to adjust the tax paid and seized and recovered from the assessee towards the net tax and the interest payable thereon and also direct the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeals on merits. 5. Ld. D.R. submitted that these facts need verification by the A.O. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also placed reliance upon the decision of B Bench of this Tribunal to which one of us is a signatory in the case of AKR Constructions Ltd., Hyderabad vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Hyderabad in ITA.No.572/Hyd/2015 dated 30.07.2015 wherein as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the returned income. The Tribunal has held that the action of the Assessee of requesting for adjustment of the amount was bond fide. No reason or ground for not accepting the said request is stated or mentioned in the grounds of appeal. Section 132B of the Act relates to application of seized assets towards tax liability. It is not stated why and on what ground the application or adjustment was not made. It is not the case of the revenue that that the cash seized was adjusted for another year or was claimed and assessed in the hands of a third person. 21. The rationale behind Section 249(4) appears to be that where an Assessee has filed a return of income, then the tax which is admittedly payable by the Assessee should be paid prior t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to verify the facts mentioned by assessee herein and if it is found that the cash seized during the course of search and also recovered thereafter, is sufficient to meet the tax liability for the above three years, the Ld. CIT(A) shall entertain the appeals and the assessee shall file application for condonation of delay which shall be considered by the Ld. CIT(A) on merits. 9. In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A.Ys. 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2009-10 i.e., ITA.Nos. 1166/Hyd/2014, 1168/Hyd/2014 1169/Hyd/2014 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes and 1167/Hyd/2014 for the A.Y. 2007-08 is dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20.01.2016 - - Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
