9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at their requests for adjustment of the seized cash against their respective advance tax liability would stand allowed with effect from the date of the first request made by the Assessees, i.e. 13th December, 2011.- Decided in favour of assessee. - W.P. (C) No. 6491/2016, CM No.26592/2016, W.P. (C) No. 6588/2016, CM No.27043/2016 - - - Dated:- 22-8-2017 - S. Muralidhar And Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ved Kumar Jain, Mr. Pranjal Srivastava, Mrs. Rano Jain, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Asheesh Jain, Sr. Standing Counsel ORDER 1. The question that arises in both these petitions is whether the Respondent Income Tax Department ( Department ) is obliged to give the Petitioners the benefit of adjus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by Ms. Abbott was processed and an intimation dated 25th November 2013 was sent. It revealed that the declared income of ₹ 5,13,29,582/- had been accepted. However, the credit of ₹ 1,18,00,000/- was not given and accordingly a demand of ₹ 1,48,54,900/- was credited which included levy of interest of ₹ 33,51,110/- as against ₹ 38,524/- computed by Ms. Abbott in the return filed. Thereafter assessment under Section 143 (3) was also completed by order dated 31st March 2014 at the same income of ₹ 5,13,29,580/- as declared by Ms. Abbott. 5. As far as Ms. Bhatia is concerned, she too offered an additional income of ₹ 1,50,00,000/- for AY 2012-13 and filed a letter dated 13th December 2011 praying fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tober 2014, i.e. after completion of the assessment. Ms. Bhatia also conveyed a similar request in writing on 13th December 2011 and later reiterated the same by letters dated 8th July 2014 and 14th July 2014. On 7th April 2015, by separate letters addressed to the Department, both Assessees requested that the seized cash be adjusted against the advance tax payment. However, without prejudice to the above contention, the Assessees stated that if their request was not acceptable, the seized cash may be adjusted against the demand raised as per the order passed under Section 143(1) of the Act for the AY 2012-13. 8. It appears that the Department, acting on the above requests, adjusted the seized cash against the tax demand in terms of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals that were filed in cases where such adjustments against advance tax have been allowed by the various High Courts. 12. Mr. Ved Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing for the Assessees, urges that, in view of the above Circular, the prayers in both these petitions should be allowed. Mr. Asheesh Jain, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Department, on the other hand, points out that it was on their own request that the adjustments were made against the Assessees tax liability determined as per the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act qua the returns filed by the Assessees for AY 2012-13. The Department cannot now be made to adjust the cash seized against the advance tax payment. According to him, the Circular No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
