9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acter of assessment though the assessee was willing to surrender the amount, would not change the position insofar as the petitioner's liability to deposit tax is concerned. We are referring to the said order only for the purpose of recording the Assistant Commissioner's views on the declaration made by the assessee concerning such amount. Declaration itself made by the assessee in his letter dated 10.01.1994. The contention that since no final assessment was framed, there was no question of adjustment of the amount towards any assessed income tax liability of the assessee also would not change the position. The question of depositing the tax in the context of the settlement proceedings arose by virtue of amended Section 245D of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y in his case as well as in cases of AOPs in which he has interest. In fact, he urged that since the cash seized during the course of search is requested to be applied against the taxes, the order for retention of such cash under Section 132(5) of the Act need not be passed as the title of the cash would vest in the department. He stated as under: As regard the seizure of cash, there is seizure of cash amounting to ₹ 10,000/-as well as ₹ 1,50,000/- aggregating to ₹ 1,60,000/-. The said cash are covered under the disclosure pursuant to Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act. It is urge upon your honou to adjust the cash seized during the course of search against the tax liabili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Maheshbhai Shantitlal Patel. Shri Maheshbhai Shantilal Patel was asked vide this office letter dated 10.12.1993 to explain the source out of which the cash of ₹ 1,50,000/- was acquired. Assessee vide his letter dated 10.1.1994 has stated that cash of ₹ 1,50,000/- may be adjusted against the tax liability which may arise in his case. In view of the above explanation of the assessee, it is clear that assessee is not in a position to give any explanation regarding source of acquisition of ₹ 1,50,000/- seized from the residence of Shri Vikramrai P. Pandya which has been claimed to be belonging to Shri Maheshbhai Shantilal Patel. In view of the above facts, the sum of ₹ 1,50,000/- is included in the total income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the applicant had paid tax of ₹ 16,44,539/- against ₹ 16,61,713/-. It was reported by the Commissioner of Income Tax that the short payment of ₹ 17,174/- was made good by making other payments alongwith interest on 18.8.2008. It was reported by the Commissioner of Income Tax that the applicant had failed to pay taxes and interest prior to 31.7.2007. 5. On 19.03.2012, the petitioner had pointed out to the Settlement Commission that, a sum of ₹ 1,60,000/- of the petitioner was in the custody of the department, for which, no credit was given. It was, therefore, requested that the question of shortfall of tax of ₹ 48,086/- be re-examined in light of such facts. The Settlement Commission, however, did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isition of ₹ 1,50,000/- seized from the residence of Shri Vikram Pandya which is claimed to be belonging to the assessee. He, therefore, included such sum of ₹ 1,50,000/- in the total income of the assessee as income from undisclosed source for the assessment year 1994-95. 7. Few things, therefore, emerged from such factors. Firstly, that the assessee immediately owned up the entire seized cash of ₹ 1,60,000/- though substantial part thereof i.e. ₹ 1,50,000/- was seized from the premises of his neighbour. Secondly, the department had also accepted such disclosure statement insofar as it related to the assessee owning up such seized cash. The Assistant Commissioner found that the assessee had offered no explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istant Commissioner under Section 132(5) of the Act does not partake character of assessment though the assessee was willing to surrender the amount, would not change the position insofar as the petitioner's liability to deposit tax is concerned. We are referring to the said order only for the purpose of recording the Assistant Commissioner's views on the declaration made by the assessee concerning such amount. Far more fundamental fact is the declaration itself made by the assessee in his letter dated 10.01.1994. The contention that since no final assessment was framed, there was no question of adjustment of the amount towards any assessed income tax liability of the assessee also would not change the position. The question of depo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
