Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Pune V. Shri Nitin Valjibhai Thakkar, Pune

ITA 1931/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1759 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POOJA RASTOGI
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 234B; 132; 2

Judgement Text

] ]] ] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE , !', $ % BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM ITA NO.1931/PN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE. . APPELLANT VS. SHRI NITIN VALJIBHAI THAKKAR, 798, BHAVANI PETH, 4/2, TULSIANI ESTATE, PUNE 411 001. PAN : AAJPT0583G . RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : MS. POOJA RASTOGI / RESPONDENT BY : MR. SUHAS BORA / DATE OF HEARING : 09.05.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25.05.2016 & / ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINS T THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, PUNE DATED 28.07.2014 RELATING TO ASSESS MENT YEAR 2004-05 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (I N SHORT THE ACT). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE INTEREST LEVIED U/S 234B AND 234C OF T HE I.T. ACT BY NOT APPRECIATING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 132B OF I.T. ACT WHICH CLEAR LY SAYS THAT SEIZED ASSET SHALL BE ADJUSTED AGAINST ANY EXISTING LIABILITY. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE INTEREST LEVIED U/S 234B AND 234C OF T HE I.T. ACT BY NOT APPRECIATING THE EXPLANATION 2 OF SECTION 132B OF I.T. ACT WHICH CLA RIFIES THAT EXISTING LIABILITY DOES NOT INCLUDE ADVANCE TAX PAYABLE. 3. THE ORDER OF CIT(A) MAY BE VACATED AND THAT OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2 ITA NO.1931/PN/2014 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND MODIFY ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WH O INTER-ALIA DERIVED INCOME FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM. A SEARCH ACTION UNDE R SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE AS SESSEE ON 21.01.2004. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CASH OF RS.76,00,000/- AND JEWELLERY OF RS.82,32,047/- WAS SEIZED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U NDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A RETURN DISCLOSING AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,60,02,180/- AS INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE ASSESS MENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ACCEPTING THE RETURNED INCOME. THE ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WERE ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, INTEREST CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234B & 234C OF THE ACT WERE CONTESTED BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN THE MEANWHILE , THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 13.03.2004 REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADJUST THE ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 OUT OF CASH S EIZED. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS NOT ADJUSTED TILL THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, A DEMAND NOTICE OF RS.65,74,746/- WAS ISSUED WITHOUT GIVING CREDIT FOR CASH SEIZED TOWARDS ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THUS, WHILE COMPUTING THE DEMAND OF RS.65,74,746/- AS NOTED ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO CHARGED INTEREST UNDER S ECTION 234B & 234C OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE DENIED THIS INTEREST LIABILITY U NDER SECTION 234B & 234C OF THE ACT AS IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE CIT(A) AFTER PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISIO N OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KESR KIMAM KARYAL AYA, (2005) 278 ITR 596 (DEL.) AND THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY VS. ACIT, (2008) 10 DTR 173 (MUM.) AND OT HER HOST OF JUDGEMENTS HELD THAT INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B & 234C OF THE ACT FOR ALLEGED DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX CANNOT BE LEVIED AND ACCORDI NGLY CONCLUDED THAT INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B & 234C OF THE ACT IS NO T CHARGEABLE. THE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E RELEVANT PARAS FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ARE EXTRACTED BELOW FOR READY REFER ENCE :- 3 ITA NO.1931/PN/2014 3.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE A PPELLANT AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE MATERIAL ON RECORD POINT O UT TO THE FACT THAT THE SEARCH ACTION ON 21.01.2004 RESULTED IN SEIZURE OF CASH AM OUNTING TO RS.76,00,000/- AND THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 13.03.2004 REQUESTE D THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADJUST THE ADVANCE-TAX LIABILITY FOR THE A.Y. 2004-05 OUT OF THE SAID SEIZED CASH, HOWEVER, THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN ADJUSTED TILL THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED AS PER RETURNED INCOME AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND DEMAND RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SEIZED CASH WAS AVAILABLE FOR ADJUSTMENT AGAINST THE TAX LIABILITY AND THE REQUES T FROM THE APPELLANT HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ITS ADJUSTME NTS, THE CREDIT OF WHICH HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE AFORESAID ISSUE IS SEEN TO BE COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE PUNE ITAT IN THE CASE OF LALIT B. K ATARIA VS DCIT (CITED SUPRA), WHEREIN THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE REFERRED BRIEF BACKGROU ND AND ON HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE HAVE FOUND THAT THIS ISSUE NOW STOOD SQUA RELY COVERED BY OUR OWN DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHRI LODHA VIJAY SHANTILAL, ITA NO. 80 & 81/PN/2008 FOR AY 2004-05 & 2005-06 ORDER DATED 16TH APRIL 200 8. ITAT 'A' BENCH PUNE WHEREIN WE HAVE CITED TWO DECISIONS OF RESPECT ED CO ORDINATE BENCHES IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER REPRODUCED BELOW:- EXTRACTED FROM HEAD NOTE:- HELD 'SEIZURE OF ASSET IS CERTAINLY A RECOVERY FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THE ORDER UNDER SUB SECTION (5) OF SECTION 132 FURNISHE S TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF LIABILITIES AND HOW SEIZED ASSETS ARE TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE LIABILITIES OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CURRENT YEAR OR SOME OTHER YEAR. IT IS DIFFICULT TO APPRECIATE THAT DESPITE THE DIRECTIONS TO ADJUST SEIZED AMOUNT UNDER SECTION 132(5) AGAINST THE LIABILITIES OF THE ACCOUNT ABOVE ADJUSTMENTS AND MAKE PAYMENT OTHERWISE DUE. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD TREAT STATUTORY PROVISION AND ORDERS PASSED THERE UNDER AND AMOUNT RECOVERED AND RETAINED AS OF NO CONSEQUENCES. THIS APPROACH DEFIES ALL LOG IC AND RATIONALITY. IT IS, THEREFORE, ONLY REASONABLE TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE T O THE CREDIT FOR THE SEIZED AMOUNT AS PER RECOVERY MADE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORIT Y AND MAKE PAYMENT ACCORDINGLY. THERE IS NO BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ' PAYMENT' OR 'RECOVERY' THOROUGH SEIZURE AND OTHER MODES OF RECOVERY PROVID ED IN THE STATUTE AS FAR AS DISCHARGE OF LIABILITIES OF THE TAX IS CONCERNED . .. HAVING DETERMINED THE INCOME AND THE TAX PAYABLE AN D THE FINDING THAT SEIZED ASSET WAS TO BE RETAINED IN FINAL ADJUS TMENT AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE GIVEN YEAR, THE ASSESSEE COULD TAKE BENEFIT OF FINDING RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 132(5). THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD PASS AFRESH ORDER RELATING TO INTEREST CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT. THE DETAIL AND DATE OF THE AMOUNT PAID AND RECOVERED FROM EACH OF THE P ARTNERS WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THEREFORE, THE ISSUE COULD NOT BE FINALLY DECIDED AT THE STAGE OF THE TRIBUNAL AND WAS REQUIRED TO BE RE MITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AFRESH ORDERS WERE TO BE PAS SED HAVING REGARD TO PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE INSTANT ORDER. AN ANOTHER DECISION IN THE CASE OF SATPAUL D. AGARW AL (HUF) VS ACIT [1998] 62 TTJ 98 HELD PORTION REPRODUCED BELOW :- EXTRACTED FROM HEAD NOTE: HELD 4 ITA NO.1931/PN/2014 'THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO MADE A REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMEN T OF THE SAID AMOUNT TOWARDS THE TAX LIABILITY. SEC. 132(5) EMPOW ERS THE REVENUE TO RETAIN ANY SEIZED ASSETS IF CASH SEIZED ON THE DATE OF SEA RCH IF IT IS FOUND THEN THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDS THE VALUE OF SUCH SEIZED ASSETS. THOUGH THE AO HAS TO WAIT FOR ADJUSTMENT OF SEIZED ASSETS TILL THE FINALIZATION OF THE ASSESSMENT, YET IN THE CASE OF CASH IT CANNOT BE SA ID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEFAULTED IN PAYMENT OF TAXES WHEN THE AMOUNT HAD B EEN RETAINED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. THE CASH SEIZED BY THE SEARCH P ARTY THAT WAS REQUIRED TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE TAXES DUE SHOULD BE TREA TED AS ADVANCE TAX FOR PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 2 34A, 234B AND 234C. IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IF THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,50,000/- IS TREATED AS ADVANCE TAX, THEN NO INTEREST UNDER S. 234A, 234B A ND 234C WOULD BE CHARGEABLE. THIS CLAIM MAY BE EXAMINED BY THE AO BY TREATING THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,50,000/- AS ADVANCE TAX. FOR THAT PURPOSE, THE ISSUE IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW.' 4. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS THE GRIEVANCE OF T HE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ALLOWED AND THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO GIVE THE DUE CR EDIT OF THE CASH SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION WHILE CALCULA TING THE INTEREST U/S 234B & 234C OF I. T. ACT. 3.2.1 IN THE CASE OF RAM SARDA VS DCIT (CITED SUPRA ), THE RAJKOT ITAT HAS HELD AS UNDER : 15. ............................................ ................................................... ... THE EXPRESSION EXISTING LIABILITY IN S.132B(1)(I) C ANNOT BE READ TO EXCLUDE A PARTICULAR TAX LIABILITY IF IT CAN BE SHOWN TO HAVE EXISTED ON A PARTICULAR DATE. IF THE LIABILITY TO PAY, THE ADVANCE TAX HAD ARISEN IT WOULD CERTAINLY CONSTITUTE A PART OF EXISTING LIABILITY AS PER S.132B(1)(I). ACCORDING TO THE SCHEME OF S. 132B, THE SEIZED ASSETS TO BE APPLIED TO THE DISCHA RGE OF EXISTING LIABILITIES IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS IN DEFAULT OR WA S DEEMED TO BE IN DEFAULT AS WELL AS THE LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF REGULAR ASSE SSMENT OR REASSESSMENT FOR THE YEARS RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEARS TO WHICH T HE INCOME RELATED AND IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS IN DEFAULT OR WA S DEEMED TO BE IN DEFAULT. HOWEVER, DURING THE SEARCH, MONEY HAD BEEN SEIZED A ND RETAINED BY THE REVENUE, SUCH MONEY CAN BE APPLIED FOR THE DISCHARG E OF BOTH LIABILITIES. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF MONEY SEIZED WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCHARGE OF THE LIABILITIES, THE ASSETS OTHER THAN MONEY WHICH HAD BEEN RETAINED WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE RESTR AINT AS IS SUCH RESTRAINT WAS EFFECTED BY THE AO UNDER S. 226(5) OF THE ACT. THE AO, THEN COULD SELL ASSETS IF HE FINDS IT NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSES OF RECOVERY OF THE AFORESAID LIABILITIES. IF ANY ASSET S OR PROCEEDS THEREOF REMAINED AFTER THE LIABILITIES HAD BEEN DISCHARGED, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE FORTHWITH PAID OR MADE TO THE PERSON FROM WHOSE CUSTODY THEY HAD BEEN SEIZED. THERE IS A PROVISION IN SUB-S. (4) OF S. 132B FOR INTEREST TO BE PAID BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNM ENT AS COMPENSATION FOR THE RETENTION OF MONEY SEIZED AND PROCEEDS OF THE ASSETS SHOWN IN EXCESS OF THE TOTAL TAX LIABILITIES AGAINST WHICH THEY HAD NOT BEEN APPLIED. WHERE THE CHARACTER OF THE AM OUNT RETAINED UNDER S. 132B AND THE PROCEEDS, IF ANY, OF THE ASSE TS SOLD FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOVERY OF EXISTING LIABILITY REFERRED TO IN THAT SECTION EXISTED THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING LIABILITY IN DEFAULT AND THE LIABILITY DETERMINED AT REGULAR ASSESSMENT, THE CENTRAL GOVER NMENT WOULD BE UNDER OBLIGATION TO PAY SIMPLE INTEREST ON THE AMOU NT OF SUCH EXCESS. WHEN UNDER THE SCHEME OF S. 132B THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO PAY SIMPLE INTEREST ON EXCESS AMOUNT, THE SAME SCHEME OF THE PROVISION IS APPLICABLE WHEN INTEREST IS TO BE RECOVERED FROM THE ASSESSEE, MAY BE UNDER SS. 234A, 234B OR 234C. THUS , THE CASH 5 ITA NO.1931/PN/2014 SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS REQUIRED TO B E ADJUSTED AGAINST TAXES DUE INCLUDING ADVANCE TAX FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF INTEREST UNDER SS. 234A, 234B AND 234C.' 3.2.2 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KESAR KIMAM KARYALAYA ( SUPRA) IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAVI NG DELETED THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234C HOLDING THE ASSESSEE'S REQUEST FO R ADJUSTMENT OF SEIZED CASH AGAINST THE ADVANCE-TAX LIABILITY OUGHT TO HAV E BEEN ALLOWED. 3.2.3 THE MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUDHAKAR M. S HETTY VS ACIT (CITED SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'WHATEVER THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN SEIZED BY THE DEPARTM ENT THAT HAS TO BE TREATED AGAINST ANY PENDING DEMAND INCLUDING PEN ALTY AND AGAINST THE DEMAND OF THE BLOCK PERIOD OF WHICH THE ASSESSM ENT HAS TO BE COMPLETED. AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF LAW, NO W THE AO IS EMPOWERED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE SEIZED CAS H AGAINST VARIOUS DEMANDS IN VIEW OF THE INCOME DETECTED DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH. AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF LAW, THERE IS NO R EQUIREMENT TO SEEK ANY REQUEST FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJUSTMENT. HOWEV ER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED TO ADJUST THE REMAINING CASH SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH AGAINST THE TAX LIABI LITY OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE DEPARTMENT HAS TO ADJUST THE AMOUNT SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH TOWARDS THE ADVANCE TAX ETC., FROM T HE DATE WHEN THE AMOUNT WAS SEIZED. IT IS INCORRECT ON THE PART OF THE AO, WHO HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADJUSTMENT FROM THE DA TE OF ASSESSMENT. IT IS A MATTER OF COMMONSENSE THAT ONCE THE AMOUNT IS LYING WITH THE DEPARTMENT THAT HAS TO BE ADJUSTED; OTHERWISE WHERE IT WILL BE ADJUSTED AND IN WHICH ACCOUNT THE DEPARTMENT WILL K EEP THE AMOUNT. THE SAME HAS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST ANY DEMAND RAIS ED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE OR AGAINST ANY DEMAND WHICH IS PENDING BEF ORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ADJUST THE REMAINING CASH SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT FROM THE DATE OF SEIZURE BECAUSE IF ANY AMOUNT IS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST ANY LIABILITY THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF THAT LIABILITY SHALL BE THE DATE OF SEIZURE AND NOT THE DATE OF ADJUSTMENT AND/OR THE D ATE OF ORDER ..' 3.2.4 SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE PUNJAB & H ARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ASHOK (2011) 334 ITR 355 (P & H) AND CIT VS ARUN KAPOOR (2011) 334 ITR 351 (P & H). THE DELHI HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF VISHWANATH KHANNA VS UOI (2011) 335 ITR 548 (DELHI) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILING TO ACCEDE TO THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADJUST ADVANCE-TAX AGAINST DEPOSITS, INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234C FOR DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF ADVANCE-TAX CANNOT BE LEVIED. 3.3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE RATIO OF THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENU E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) FOR THE A SSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI LODHA VIJAY SHANTILAL VS. 6 ITA NO.1931/PN/2014 JT.CIT IN ITA NOS.80 & 81/PN/2008 RELATING TO ASSES SMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06, ORDER DATED 16.04.2008. 7. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVE NUE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS APPLICABILITY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B & 234C OF THE ACT WITHOUT GIVING CREDIT FOR CASH SEIZED WHEN SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR ITS APPROPRIATION TOWARDS ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S MADE A SPECIFIC REQUEST TO ADJUST THE CASH SEIZED TOWARDS ADVANCE TAX LIABILIT Y PRIOR TO THE DUE DATE OF PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY. THEREFORE, WE AR E OF THE OPINION THAT THE REVENUE WAS UNDER OBLIGATION TO ACCEDE TO THE REQUE ST AND APPROPRIATE THE CASH SEIZED AGAINST THE ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY. THE CASH SEIZED AND AVAILABLE AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE REVENUE WAS SUFFICIENT TO COVER THE ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, NO INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B & 234C OF THE ACT COULD BE CHARGED. WE ALSO FIND T HAT THE ISSUE IS NO LONGER RES-INTEGRA. WE FIND THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED I N THE FOVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KESR KIMAM KARYALAYA (SUPRA) AND THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI LODHA VIJAY SHANTILAL (SUPRA). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW ING THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON THE ISSUE NOTED ABOVE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN T HE ORDER OF CIT(A). 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF MAY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 25 TH MAY, 2016. 7 ITA NO.1931/PN/2014 & ' () *+( / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-II, PUNE; 5) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. &, / BY ORDER , ' # //TRUE COPY// $ %& # '( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) '* , / ITAT, PUNE