Prabhat Chandra S Jain, Mumbai V. ACIT, Pune

ITA 1330/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2261 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B; DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS EKTA JOSHI
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 244A; 153A; 234B; 132

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE . . , , ' # BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.1330/PN/2013 '% % / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI PRABHAT CHANDRA S. JAIN, 206, ANAND BHAVAN, 17, BABUGENU ROAD, PRINCESS STREET, MARINE LINES, MUMBAI 400 002 PAN NO. AAKPJ3257E . / APPELLANT V/S ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : MRS. EKTA JOSHI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN JAIN & B / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29-03-2013 OF THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE RELATING TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. A SEARCH ACTION U/S.132 OF THE I. T. ACT WAS CA RRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 20-01-2010. DURING THE SAID SEARCH CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.15 LAKHS WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDEN TIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153 A THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 01-03-2011 DISCLOSING TO TAL INCOME OF RS.8,18,33,660/-. IT MAY BE PERTINENT TO NOTE HE RE THAT / DATE OF HEARING :07.12.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18.12.2015 2 ITA NO.1330/PN/2013 THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS.8 CRORES IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE AO COMPLET ED THE ASSESSMENT ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.8,18,33,660/- VIDE ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) ORDER DATED 30-12-2011. SINCE THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN CREDIT OF RS.15 LAKHS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION TREATING THE SAID AMOUNT AS ADVANCE TAX AT THE TIME OF FINAL DETERMINATION OF TAX LIABILITY THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 3. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL HEARING IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE CREDIT OF RS.15 LAKHS TREAT ING THE SAME AS ADVANCE TAX. NO INTEREST U/S.234A, 234B OR 234C CAN BE CHARGED ON SHORTFALL TO THIS EXTENT AND THE DEPARTMENT IS LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST U/S.244A FROM THE DATE OF SEIZURE OF THE CASH TILL THE DA TE OF ASSESSMENT. RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO TREAT THE SEIZED CASH AS ADVA NCE TAX AND DELETE THE INTEREST LEVIED UNDER VARIOUS SECTIONS AND ALLO W GRANT OF INTEREST U/S.244A FROM THE DATE OF SEIZURE TILL DATE. 4. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE ARGUM ENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 3.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPE LLANT AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT HAS RAI SED THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 AND 2 HAS CONTESTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN COMPUTING THE FINAL TAX LIABILITY WITHOUT GIVING CREDIT OF RS.15,00,000/- WHICH WAS SEIZ ED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTIO N U/S 132. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISE OF THE APPELLANT ON 20.11.2010 WHEREIN CASH OF RS. 15 LACS WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDEN TIAL PREMISE. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT TREATED THE SAID SEIZED CASH AS ADVANCE-TAX W HILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY, CLAIMED CREDIT OF THE SAID AMOUNT WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT TREAT THE CASH SEIZE D AS 3 ITA NO.1330/PN/2013 ADVANCE-TAX AND ACCORDINGLY NO CREDIT FOR RS. 15 LAC S WAS GIVEN, WHICH RESULTED INTO A TAX DEMAND OF RS. 22.38 LACS AFTER CH ARGING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B AND 234C AND FURTHER NO INT EREST U/S 244A HAS BEEN GRANTED. IT IS, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT TH E APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE CREDIT OF RS. 15 LACS AND THE SAID PROPOSITION IS CORRECT IN LAW IN TREATING THE SEIZED CASH AS ADVANCE- TAX AND THAT NO INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C AND BE CHARGED ON TH E SHORT-FALL AND THE DEPARTMENT IS LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST U/S 244A OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDIC IAL DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. 1. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY VS ACIT 10 DTR 173 (MUMBAI) 2. SHRI RAM S SARDA VS. DY. CIT (LTAT RAJKOT) I.T.A. NO. 1172/RJT/2010 3. NIKKAMAL BABU RAM VS ACIT 41 SOT 407 [CHANDIGARH] 4. CIT VS SHRI JYOTINDRA B MODY (ITA/3741/2010) BOMBAY HIGH COURT 3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLA NT AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THA T THE SEIZURE OF CASH TOOK PLACE ON 21-01-2010 FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISE S OF THE APPELLANT AND THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO MADE A DISCLOSURE OF ADDITI ONAL INCOME OF RS. 8 CRORES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE APPELL ANT TREATED THE SEIZED CASH AS ADVANCE-TAX WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY CLAIMED CREDIT FOR THE SAID AMOUNT WHERE AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT TREAT THE SEIZED CASH AS ADVANCE-TAX A ND NO CREDIT FOR THE SAID AMOUNT WAS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT WHICH RESULTED INTO THE TAX DEMAND OF RS. 22.38 LACS. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT MADE ANY REQUEST FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF TAX TOWARDS THE ADVANCE-TAX EITHER AT THE TIME OF SEIZURE OF CASH OR HAD FILED AN Y LETTER REQUESTING ITS ADJUSTMENT AGAINST ADVANCE-TAX PRIOR TO 15 TH MARCH 2010, AND IT WAS ONLY IN THE RETURN FILED FOR A.Y.2010-11 THAT THE A PPELLANT FOR THE FIRST TIME CLAIMED FOR THE TREATMENT OF SEIZED CASH AS ADVAN CE-TAX FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11. IN THIS REGARD IT IS RELEVANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE SEIZED CASH IF AT ALL WAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS AN INSTALMENT FOR ADVANC E-TAX AS ON 15.03.2010 THE APPELLANT OUGHT TO HAVE MADE A REQUE ST PRIOR TO THAT DATE FOR ITS ADJUSTMENT AGAINST ADVANCE-TAX. IN COMMON PRAC TICE AS IS SEEN THE CASH SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH IS KEPT IN THE PERSONAL DE POSIT ACCOUNT (PD ACCOUNT) OF THE COMMISSIONER AND IT IS GENERALLY A DJUSTED AGAINST THE TAX LIABILITY WHEN FULL AND FINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 153A IS FRAMED AND TAX DEMAND IS CREATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, UNLESS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE CASH SEIZED SHOULD BE TREATED AS ADVANCE-TAX P AID AS ON THE DATE OF SEIZURE. 3.4 IN THE AFORESAID CASES CITED ABOVE AND RELIED UPO N BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS SEEN THAT IN ALL THE CASES THE ASSESSEE S HAD MADE SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF SEIZED CASH AGAINST THE TA XES WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE NO SUCH REQUEST HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A PPELLANT, HENCE ON FACTS THE DECISION RELIED UPON IS DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANT'S CASE. THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED OPI NION SUCH INTERPRETATION AS STATED BY APPELLANT OF THE CASH SEIZE D TOWARDS TAX LIABILITY DOES NOT SEEM TO BE REASONABLE AND IN ACCORD ANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND MORE SO WHEN THE APPELLANT H AD NEITHER MADE A REQUEST IN WRITING BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF THE PAYM ENT OF ADVANCE-TAX NOR HAD REQUESTED OR STATED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) AS IS 4 ITA NO.1330/PN/2013 APPARENT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE EARLIEST D ATE WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE ACTED WAS WHEN THE APPELLAN T FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS MUCH LATER THAN THE DATE WHEN ADJUSTMENT OF ADVANCE-TAX COULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT. SUB-SECT ION (1) OF SECTION 132B REQUIRES THE SEIZED ASSETS TO BE APPROPRIATED AGAIN ST ANY EXISTING TAX LIABILITY OR THE TAX LIABILITY TO BE DETERMINED ON COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT OF SEARCH CASES. THE SAID SECTION IS NOT A DEEMING SECTION AND, THEREFORE, THE SEIZURE OF CASH DO NOT AUTOMATIC ALLY ENTITLES THE ASSESSEE FOR ITS ADJUSTMENT AGAINST THE ADVANCE-TAX. 3.5 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS THE CONTENTION OF TH E APPELLANT THAT THE SAME BE TREATED AS ADVANCE-TAX IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN TH E GIVEN FACTS OF THE CASE. THUS IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AT BEST THE APPELLANT CAN CLAIM FOR ADJUSTMENT OF THE CASH SEIZED AGAINST THE TAX LIABI LITY ARISING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A FOR A.Y. 2010-11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS, THEREFORE, RIGH TLY CHARGED INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C AND HAS NOT GRANTED I NTEREST U/S.244A FROM THE DATE OF SEIZURE TILL THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT. 3.6 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT CASH OF RS. 15,00,000/- SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT BY THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE TREATED ADVANCE TAX FOR CALCUL ATING INTEREST U/S. 234A, 234B,234C & INTEREST U/S. 244A. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT SEIZED CASH CANNOT BE TREATED AS ADVANCE TAX BECAUSE THE APPELLAN T HAD NOT MADE ANY SPECIFIC REQUEST TO TREAT THE SEIZED CASH AS ADVANCE TAX. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THA T THE APPELLANT CAN AT BEST CLAIM FOR ADJUSTMENT OF THE CASH SEIZED AG AINST THE TAX LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143 R.W .S. 153A FOR THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND NOT BEFORE THAT DATE. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE GRANTED INTEREST @12% ON THE REFUND AMOUNT FROM THE DATE OF SEIZURE TILL THE DATE OF ACTUAL REFUND. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES TO ADD, TO ALTER OR T O DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IF NECESSARY 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARIN G FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING CASE DECISIONS : 1. CIT VS. MRS. SHRICHAND GUPTA DELHI HIGH COURT 2. ACIT VS. NARENDRA THACKER ITA NO.1/KOL/2012 5 ITA NO.1330/PN/2013 3. KHARATI LAL SACHDEVA VS. ACIT ITA NO.3286/DELHI/20 09 4. ACIT VS. CONCRETA DEVELOPERS 155 ITD 65 5. KANISHKA PRINTS (P) LTD. VS. ACIT 159 TTJ 699 6. SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY VS. ACIT 10 DTR173 7. SHRI RAM SHARDA VS. DCIT ITA NO.1172/RJT/2010 8. CIT VS. SHRI JYOTINDRA B. MODY ITA NO.3741/2010 7. REFERRING TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SUDHAKAR M. S HETTY (SUPRA) SHE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE SAID DECISION THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO SEEK ANY REQUEST FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJUSTMENT OF THE SEIZED CASH. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CA SE HAD REQUESTED TO DEPARTMENT TO ADJUST THE CASH WHICH WAS SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH AGAINST HIS TAX LIABILITY THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO ADJUST THE SEIZED CASH TOWARDS THE ADVANCE TAX ETC. FROM THE DATE WHEN IT WAS SEIZED. REFERRING TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHRI JYOTINDRA B. MODY (SUPRA) SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD TH AT ONCE THE ASSESSEE OFFERS TO TAX THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME INCLUDING THE AMOUNT SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH, THEN THE LIABILITY TO PA Y ADVANCE TAX IN RESPECT OF THAT AMOUNT ARISES EVEN BEFORE COMPLE TION OF ASSESSMENT. SHE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE SAID DECIS ION THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132B(1)(I) OF THE ACT DOES NOT PROHIBIT U TILIZATION OF THE AMOUNT SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TOWARD S THE TAX PAYABLE ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME DECLARED DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH. SHE SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY SPECIFIC REQUEST TO THE AO TO TREAT THE SEIZED CASH TOWARDS ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11, HOWEVER, THE ASS ESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION STATEMENT FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF IN COME HAD TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS.15 LAKHS AS ADVANCE TAX PAID O N 22-01- 2010. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO GET DUE CRE DIT OF THE SAID AMOUNT AS PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE 6 ITA NO.1330/PN/2013 LD.CIT(A) WITHOUT VALID REASONS HAD REJECTED THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE. EVEN HIS OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE AT B EST CLAIM FOR ADJUSTMENT OF THE CASH SEIZED AGAINST THE TAX LIABILITY ARIS ING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 153A FOR A.Y. 201 0-11 HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO. SHE ACCORDINGLY SU BMITTED THAT SUITABLE DIRECTION MAY BE GIVEN TO THE AO FOR GIVING NECESS ARY CREDIT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.15 LAKHS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 8. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HA ND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR ADJUSTME NT OF THE SEIZED CASH. REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132B H E SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE PROVISION SPECIFIES THE MANNER O F ADJUSTMENT OF THE SEIZED CASH. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS NOT KNOWN AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ANY EXISTING LIABILITY OR NOT FOR OTHER YEARS. NO SPECIFIC REQUEST WAS MADE EITHER TO THE INVES TIGATION WING OR TO THE AO FOR TREATMENT OF THE SEIZED CASH AS ADVAN CE TAX LIABILITY OR PAYMENT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX ETC. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BEING FULLY JUSTIFIED SHOULD BE UPHELD. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND T HE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDER ED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND IN THE INSTANT CA SE AN AMOUNT OF RS.15 LAKHS WAS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEA RCH FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 20-01-2010. THE ASSES SEE FILED THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A ON 01-03-2011. N O SPECIFIC REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO TREAT THE SEIZED CASH AS ADVANCE TAX FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11. ONLY IN THE RETURN FILED IN 7 ITA NO.1330/PN/2013 RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A THE ASSESSEE IN HIS COMPUTA TION STATEMENT HAS CLAIMED THE AMOUNT OF RS.15 LAKHS AS ADVAN CE TAX PAID. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 30-12-2011. IT IS THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.15 LAKHS SHOULD BE TREATED AS ADVANCE TAX FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11. WE DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE ABOVE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, NO SPECIFIC REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE TO TREAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.15 LAKHS AS PAYMENT OF ADVANCE T AX. ONLY IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A THE ASSES SEE HAS CONSIDERED THE SAME AS PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX ON 22-0 1-2010. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC REQUEST BY THE ASSESSEE TO TREA T THE CASH SEIZED AS ADVANCE TAX THE SAME IN OUR OPINION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX. THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED O N BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS A ND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE IN ALL THOSE CASES THERE WERE SPECIFIC REQUESTS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TREATING THE SEIZED CASH AS ADVANCE TAX/SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX. 10. EVEN IN THE RETURN FILED, ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED AN AMOUNT OF RS.15 LAKHS AS ADVANCE TAX ON 22-01-2010 DRA WN ON BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, JUHU, VILEPARLY WEST, PAID IN BANK OF MAHARASHTRA VIDE 0230484 SR.NO.00052, HOWEVER, WE FIND IT IS NOT VERY CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THIS IS THE SEIZED CASH OR ANY OTHER AMOUNT THAT HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO MENTIO N THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNT IS THE SEIZED CASH. HOWEVER, WHEN THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 30-12-2011 HE SHOULD HAVE GIVEN CRE DIT OF THIS RS.15 LAKHS AS TAX PAID AND REDUCED THE SAME FROM THE T AX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING TH AT THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM FOR ADJUSTMENT OF THE CASH SEIZED AGA INST THE TAX 8 ITA NO.1330/PN/2013 LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S.143(3) R. W.S. 153A FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 AND THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPE AL AGAINST THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ADJUST THE CASH SEIZED FROM THE TAX LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF THE A SSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 153A FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 W.E.F . 30-12- 2011. THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18-12-2015. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 18 TH DECEMBER, 2015. ( )'+ , / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) - I I , PUNE 4. 5. 6. THE CIT-II, PUNE % ((), ), / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; . / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , % // % ( //TRUE COPY// 01 ( ) / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ), / ITAT, PUNE