9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clear indicator that the expression existing liability did include advance before its insertion. Therefore, this argument of Mr Singh/respondent does not find favour with us. As decided in in Latika Datt Abbott case [ 2017 (8) TMI 1297 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the court in no uncertain terms held that the assessees in the said case were entitled to the benefit of Circular No.20 of 2017 and that their request for adjustment of tax liability would have to be allowed w.e.f. from the date when the request was first made. Therefore, in our view, the stand taken on behalf of the petitioner by Mr Sharma/petitioner would have to be accepted for the reasons given above. The respondents/revenue ought to have treated the cash seized as advance tax and accordingly passed the assessment order. Section 234A of the Act imposes a liability on the assessee for payment of interest where there is default in filing the ROI. Likewise, Section 234B of the Act imposes a liability on the assessee for payment of interest where there is default in payment of advance tax. As far as Section 234C is concerned, it adverts to the liability of the assessee to pay interest where there is a deferment of adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... result of the aforementioned grievances, the petitioner says that the refund for the Assessment Year (AY) in issue i.e., AY 2009-10 has been truncated. 2. The notice in the instant writ petition was issued on 08.05.2019. On that date, the respondents/revenue were represented by a counsel. Although, on that date and thereafter several opportunities were granted, no counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents/revenue. Resultantly, the opportunity to file a counter-affidavit was closed via order dated 09.10.2019 passed by the learned Registrar. It is common ground that this direction has not been disturbed. 3. We may note that despite the aforementioned order closing the right of the respondents/revenue to file a counter-affidavit, on 20.07.2023, an opportunity was granted to the counsel for the parties to file written submissions in the matter. 3.1 The record shows that only the petitioner has filed written submissions in the matter. Once again there has been a failure on the part of the respondents/revenue to file written submissions in the matter. 4. Given the situation, Mr Vidit Sharma, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, has submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this plea, Mr Sharma seeks to place reliance on the following judgments: (i) Latika Datt Abbott v. Director of Income Tax Investigation Unit-II Ors., passed in two writ petitions including WP(C) 6491/2016 dated 22.08.2017; (ii) Pranoy Roy Anr. V. Commissioner of Income Tax Anr., 2001 SCC OnLIne Del 1362; (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax Kanpur v. Sunil Chandra Gupta 2015:AHC:34306-DB. 9. Furthermore, Mr Sharma to buttress his argument that the amendment made in Section 132B of the Act by insertion of Explanation 2, which forbade the adjustment of cash seized as advance tax, has prospective effect i.e., from the date indicated in FA 2013, relied on Circular No. 20 of 2017 dated 12.06.2017 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). It is common ground that FA 2013 stipulated that Explanation 2 would take effect from 01.06.2013. 10. In rebuttal, Mr Singh made a valiant attempt to persuade the court that adjustment could only be made against existing tax liability and since on the date of seizure of the cash no tax liability had been determined, the adjustment could not have been made otherwise than as self-assessment tax. 10.1 Based o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oney so applied; xxx xxx xxx (3) Any assets or proceeds thereof which remain after the liabilities referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (1) are discharged shall be forthwith made over or paid to the persons from whose custody the assets were seized. (4) (a) The Central Government shall pay simple interest at the rate of [one-half per cent for every month or part of a month] on the amount by which the aggregate amount of money seized under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A, as reduced by the amount of money, if any, released under the first proviso to clause (i) of sub-section (1), and of the proceeds, if any, of the assets sold towards the discharge of the existing liability referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (1), exceeds the aggregate of the amount required to meet the liabilities referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of this section. (b) Such interest shall run from the date immediately following the expiry of the period of one hundred and twenty days from the date on which the last of the authorisations for search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A was executed to the date of completion of the assessment [or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvance tax the benefit of Circular No. 20/2017 is extended but not to those defaulting Assessees whose request made prior thereto for adjustment of the seized cash against advance tax dues is refused and adjustment is made against the tax demand prior to the date of the above Circular. This discrimination vis-a-vis two sets of defaulting Assessees cannot be legally countenanced, particularly since the stand of the Department, as made explicit by Circular No. 20/2017, is to grant the benefit of adjustment of seized cash against advance tax liability to all Assessees in default of payment of advance tax. 14. The Court, therefore, sees no justification in the Department not granting the benefit of the Circular No. 20/2017 to these two Assessees, notwithstanding that the Department may have adjusted the seized cash against their respective determined tax liability. 16. Briefly put, the court in no uncertain terms held that the assessees in the said case were entitled to the benefit of Circular No.20 of 2017 and that their request for adjustment of tax liability would have to be allowed w.e.f. from the date when the request was first made. This is evident upon a perusal of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
