9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e taken away from the assessee for the reasons discussed by the authorities below. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the impugned orders of the CIT(A) are required to be reversed. We accordingly set aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A) for both the years, and restore these matters to the file of the CIT(A), with a direction to condone the delay in the payment of taxes on admitted income by the assessee, which has taken place only on account of late adjustment of cash seized at the time of search, by the Revenue towards the taxes due from the assessee for the years under appeal, and proceed to dispose off the appeals for both he appeals before him afresh on merits in accordance with law and after giving reasonable opportunity of heari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of cash to the tune of ₹ 5 lakhs. Assessee required for adjustment of the seized cash towards tax liability for the years under consideration, which the Department did not do. During the proceedings before us, the learned counsel for the assessee demonstrated that there was seizure of cash to the tune of ₹ 5 lakhs. The said amount was offered by the assessee towards taxes for the years under consideration. It was also mentioned that the assessing officer did not adjust the same towards taxes. The learned counsel argued stating that when the assessee s cash was lying with the Department, and when the assessee requested the Department to adjust the same towards its liability towards taxes, it is for the Department to proceed on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the tax liability, which was not done in the instant case, despite the request of the assessee. The tax liability relates to the admitted income too. We have also perused the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prem Nath Nagpal V./s. ACIT (128 TTJ (Del) 53), wherein a similar proposition has been laid down. In these factual matrix of the case, when the Department failed to adjust the seized cash towards the taxes due, notwithstanding the request of the assessee, till the appeals were filed by the assessee before the CIT(A), the default if any, on account of the non-payment of taxes on returned income is attributable to the Revenue, for which assessee should not be penalized. 6. Provisions of S.249(4)(a) read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e taxes due on the returned income, which has not been acted upon by the Revenue, despite the offer of the assessee. In other words, to our mind, this is a case of deemed payment. In the situation, to our mind, the expression paid used in the Act is inclusive of all kinds of payments including deemed payment , if any, and that being so, the case of the assessee must be considered as covered by the said expression and consequently, assessee must be deemed to have paid the taxes due on the income returned by him for the years under appeal. 7. It is trite law that right of appeal is a precious right, which must be protected and should not be taken away from the assessee for the reasons discussed by the authorities below. Therefore, we ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
