Shri Govindprasad G. Sarawagi, HUF, Surat V. The DCIT,Central Circle-4, Surat

ITA 1631/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0523 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPAK SUTARIA
• Assessee Lawyers: R B SHAH
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 1631/AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) SHRI GOVINDPRASAD G. SARAWAGI HUF V-2131, SURAT TEXTILE MARKET, RING ROAD, SURAT-395002 V/S THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4, SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAGHS8859F APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. B. SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DEEPAK SUTARIA, SR. D.R . ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 23-09-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26-09-2016 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, AHMEDABAD DATED 21.03.2013 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2009-10. ITA NO. 1631 /AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009- 10 2 2. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSES SEE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. BY WHICH THE A.O. DENIED THE CLAIM OF CREDIT TOWARDS TAX PAYMENT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE R ETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 7,63,23,722/- WAS ASSESSED AT THE S AME FIGURE AND ACCORDINGLY CREDIT WAS GIVEN FOR PREPAID TAXES AFTE R DUE VERIFICATION. 4. HOWEVER, INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE CREDIT OF RS. 30,78,600/- WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY CHALLAN. CONSIDERING THIS AS A MISTAKE APPARENT FRO M RECORD, THE A.O. DENIED THE CLAIM OF RS. 30,78,600/-. 5. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) B UT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMEN TLY STATED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 30,78,600/- WAS CASH SEIZED DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE SAME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED AGA INST THE ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THA T SINCE THE CREDIT ORIGINALLY GIVEN BY THE A.O, WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN BY ORDER MADE U/S. 154 OF THE ACT, THE ORDER MADE BY THE A.O. WAS ERR ONEOUS ON FACTS AND FURTHER THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALSO FELL INTO AN ERROR BY CONFIRMING THE SAID ORDER OF THE A.O. PER CONTRA, T HE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW QUA THE FACTS. IT IS AN UNDISPUTE D FACT THAT CERTAIN CASH WAS SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. WE ALSO FIND THAT AN APPLICATION ITA NO. 1631 /AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009- 10 3 WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE CASH SO SEIZED TOWARDS INCOME TAX LIABILITY. THE REVENUE IS IN POS SESSION OF THE CASH SEIZED AS NO REFUND WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, THER EFORE IT IS BUT LOGICAL THAT THE CREDIT OF SUCH CASH SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH SHOULD BE GIVEN AND THE SAME SHOULD BE ADJUSTED TOWARDS IN COME TAX LIABILITY AND THEN THE INTEREST SHOULD BE LEVIED AS PER THE P ROVISIONS OF THE LAW. 8. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILES OF THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE AMOUNT OF CASH SEIZED AT TH E TIME OF SEARCH AND THEN ADJUST SUCH SEIZED CASH TOWARDS THE TAX LIABIL ITY OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEN LEVY INTEREST AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATE D AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 26 - 09- 2016 . SD/- SD/- (S. S. GODARA) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD