Kumbakonam Silver Shop, CHENNAI V. DCIT, Coimbatore

ITA 891/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4659 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 26-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P B SEKRAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 69; 27; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH CHENN AI BEFORE DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NOS.890 TO 893/MDS./2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2005-06,2009-10,2009-10 & 2005-06 M/S.KUMBAKONAM SILVER SHOP, 364,BAZAAR STREET, SALEM 636 001 VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, COIMBATORE. PAN AACFK 1324 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.1361MDS./2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 & C.O.NO.130/MDS.2013 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, COIMBATORE. VS. M/S.KUMBAKONAM SILVER SHOP, 364,BAZAAR STREET, SALEM 636 001 PAN AACFK 1324 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT/ CROSS OBJECTOR) M/S.KUMBAKONAM SILVER SHOP 2 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI P.B.SEKRAN, CIT D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 26.08.13 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29. 08.13 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER : ITA NOS.890 & 893/MDS/13 (A.Y. 2005-06) THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISE FRO M DIFFERENT ORDERS OF CIT(A)-II, COIMBATORE DATED 25. 02.2013 AND 22.03.2013 IN I.T.APPEAL NO.99/10-11 AND NO.23/11-1 2 IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C READ WITH SECTION 14 3(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AND UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, RESPECTIVELY. THE RELEVANT AS SESSMENT YEAR IS 2005-06 IN BOTH THE APPEALS. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF HE ARING CLARIFIES THAT ITA NO.890/MDS./13 IS A QUANTUM APPEAL WHEREAS ITA NO.893/MDS./13 PERTAINS TO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. TH EREAFTER, IT VEHEMENTLY ARGUES THAT IN ITA NO.890/MDS./13, THE C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER OF ` 44,76,042/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. COMING TO THE P ENALTY M/S.KUMBAKONAM SILVER SHOP 3 APPEAL, IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT T HE SAME HAS BEEN WRONGLY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND C ONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE PRAYS FOR A CCEPTANCE OF BOTH THE APPEALS. 3. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN THE QUANTUM AS WELL AS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM, ENGAGED IN RETAIL BUS INESS OF JEWELLERY. IT BELONGS TO ONE AVR SANTHAGOPALAN G ROUP IN SALEM. ON 29.01.2009, THE GROUP WAS SUBJECTED TO A SEARCH BY THE DEPARTMENT. ON THE VERY SAME DAY, A SURVEY WAS ALSO CONDUCTED IN ASSESSEES BUSINESS PREMISES. SINCE T HE DEPARTMENT HAD SEIZED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMIS ES OF SHRI A.R.SANTHAGOPALAN CHETTAIR, A NOTICE STOOD ISSUED U NDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. THE DOCUMENTS RECOVERED FORMING T HE BASIS OF THE SAID NOTICE WERE PARTY BALANCE AND GENERAL BALA NCE OF THE ASSESSEE UPTO 14.09.2004. IT IS REITERATED THAT TH E RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2005-06 AND ACCOUNTING PERIOD IS FROM 01.04.2004 TO 31.03.2005. M/S.KUMBAKONAM SILVER SHOP 4 5. ON BEING ASKED TO RECONCILE THE ENTRIES IN THE PARTY BALANCE AND GENERAL BALANCE AFORESAID, THE ASSESSEES EXPLA NATION WAS THAT BEFORE 25.09.2004, ITS PARTNERS WERE SRI A.R.S ANTHAGOPALAN, SRI A.S.RAMESH, SRI A.B.SUNDARSANAM, SMT.B.JAYALAKS HMI AMMAL AND SRI S.B.S.SANJJAY. IT WOULD FURTHER EXPL AIN THAT WITH EFFECT FROM 25.09.2004, SRI A.B.S.SANJJAY, SMT.JAYA LAKSHMI AMMAL AND SRI A.B.S.SANJJAY ENTERED INTO A DIVISION OF THE FIRM AND TOOK SOME OF THE STAFF. THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT SRI A.B.SUNDARSANAM HAD LENT SOME ADVANCES TO THE STAFF OF THE FIRM OUT OF WHOM, MOST OF THEM HAD EITHER RETIRED OR LEF T WITH THE PARTNERS ABOVE SAID. IT SUBMITTED THAT BECAUSE OF THESE REASONS, THE ADVANCES MADE WERE NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTNERS OR IN ITS BOOKS. AS WE FIND FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.11.2010, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUMMA RILY REJECTED THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION BY HOLDING THAT SINCE TH E TRANSACTIONS WERE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE AMOUNT IN Q UESTION OF ` 44,76,042/- DESERVED TO BE ASSESSED UNDISCLOSED IN COME. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS ADDED IN THE ASSESSEES TOTAL I NCOME. PENALTY NOTICE WAS ALSO ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT. THE ADDITION HAS ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED IN APPEAL BY THE C IT(A). M/S.KUMBAKONAM SILVER SHOP 5 IN THIS BACKDROP OF THE FACTS, WE ARE SEIZED OF THE QUANTUM APPEAL. 6. COMING TO THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE S EXPLANATION ABOVE SAID REMAINED SAME AS IN THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT(SUPRA), BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. H OWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 16.03. 2011 WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS, THE ACT OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTED TO A CASE OF DELIB ERATE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, HE IMPOSED PEN ALTY OF ` 16,37,895/-. THE CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE PENALTY IN ASSESSEES APPEAL. THEREFORE, ITA NO.893/MDS./13 IS BEFORE US . 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES QUA THE QUANTUM AS W ELL AS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE COMMON FACTS RELEVANT TO BOTH THE CASES STAND NARRATED HEREINABOVE. UNDISPUTEDLY NEI THER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE CIT(A) HAVE ADVERTED TO V ERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION AFORESAID . NO ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE TO FIND OUT AS TO WHETHER THE DIVISI ON OF THE FIRM DATED 25.09.2004(SUPRA) HAD IN FACT TAKEN PLACE OR NOT. FURTHERMORE, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER, THE NAMES OF THE EMPLOYEES AND OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAD BEE N M/S.KUMBAKONAM SILVER SHOP 6 ADVANCED MONEY STAND DULY MENTIONED IN THE GENERAL BALANCE AS WELL AS PARTY BALANCE STATEMENTS, WE HOLD THAT THES E DETAILS HAVE NOWHERE BEEN VERIFIED NEITHER IN THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT NOR BY THE CIT(A) IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACCOUNTED T HE AFORESAID ENTRIES IN THE NATURE OF IRRECOVERABLE ADVANCES TO ITS FORMER STAFF MEMBERS WHO WENT WITH THE RETIRING PARTNERS OR RET IRED IN THE NATURE OF IRRECOVERABLE SUMS, WOULD NOT LEAD TO ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, BO TH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN APPROPRIATE LIGHT OF FACTS THEREFORE, INSTEAD OF RESTORING THE ISSUE BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN TH E INTEREST OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET IN CASE A LUMP SUM ADDITION OF ` 20 LAKHS IS DELETED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE R EVENUE OUT OF TOTAL AMOUNT OF ` 44,76,042/-. HENCE, WE PARTLY ACCEPT THE QUANTUM APPEAL NO.890/MDS./13 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . 8. NOW, WE COME TO THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO.893/MDS./13 ARISING OUT OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF OUR OBSERVATIONS HEREIN ABOVE IN QUANTUM APPEAL, THERE IS HARDLY ANY SCOPE FOR US TO HOLD THAT THE ACT OF THE ASSESSEE I N NOT ACCOUNTING M/S.KUMBAKONAM SILVER SHOP 7 FOR IRRECOVERABLE ADVANCES AS INCOME LEADS TO CONCE ALMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THEREF ORE, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY STANDS DELETED. 8.1 CONSEQUENTLY, APPEAL NO.890/MDS./13 IS PARTLY ALLOWED WHEREAS APPEAL NO.893/MDS./13 IS ALLOWED. ITA NOS.892 & 891/MDS./13 (A.Y. 2009-10) 9. THESE TWO ARE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY CIT(A)-I I, COIMBATORE DATED 25.02.2013 IN I.T.APPEAL NO.101/10 -11 IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, WHERE AS ITA NO.891/MDS./13 ARISES FROM THE ORDER DATED 22.03.20 13 IN ITA NO.22/11-12 IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT. 10. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE VEHEMEN TLY ARGUES THAT THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF ` 13,43,518/- QUA VALUE OF EXCESS STOCK OF GOLD JEWEL LERY IN ITS TOTAL INCOME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN ITA NO.89 1/MDS./13, IT IS ALSO THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER UNDER M/S.KUMBAKONAM SILVER SHOP 8 SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, IT PRAYS FO R ACCEPTANCE OF THE APPEALS. 11. THE REVENUE STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN QUANTUM AS WELL AS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND PRAYS FO R CONFIRMATION THEREOF. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE CA SE FILES. 12. FACTS APROPOS COMMON TO BOTH APPEALS ARE THAT IN FURTHERANCE THE IMPUGNED SEARCH HEREINABOVE, THE AS SESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 16.08.10 DECLARING TOTAL IN COME OF ` 9,91,07,320/-. IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY, THE AS SESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT IN THE SEARCH AND SURVEY, THE DEPA RTMENT HAD INVENTORISED GOLD JEWELLERY WEIGHING 183644.530 GR AMS. ON BEING ASKED TO RECONCILE, THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTED TO HAVE ACCEPTED DIFFERENCE OF 27,630.540 GRAMS EXCESS STO CK. IT ALSO OFFERED GOLD WEIGHING 1221.380 GRAMS I.E. 27,630 .540 26,409.380 GRAMS AS EXCESS STOCK DUE TO MISTAKES I N WEIGHING ETC. WE NOTICE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30. 11.2010 THAT THE SAID EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE QUA THE DIFFER ENCE IN STOCK FAILED TO CONVINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO REJE CTED POSSIBILITY M/S.KUMBAKONAM SILVER SHOP 9 OF A MISTAKE EITHER IN WEIGHING OR IN ANY OTHER MOD E OF COMPUTATION INCLUDING ARITHMETICAL ERROR. THEREFORE , HE ADDED THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF ` 13,43,518/- UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE OTHER ADDITIONS OF UNEXPLAINED MONEY, UNACCOUNTED OLD GOLD, PURCHASE O F GOLD COIN AND UNACCOUNTED SALES ETC. OF ` 50,911/-, ` 3,25,380/-, ` 88,163/- & ` 2,50,594/- RESPECTIVELY. IN VIEW THEREOF, ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AS ` 10,11,65,890/-. ALONG WITH THE SAME, HE ALSO ISS UED A NOTICE FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 27 1AAA OF THE ACT. 13. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL. WE NOTICE FROM THE CIT(A)S ORDER IN ITA NO.892/MDS./13 THAT HE HA S CONFIRMED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF EXCESS STOCK IN QUESTION A ND DELETED THE OTHER ADDITIONS EXCEPT THAT OF OLD GOLD, WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD FOR WANT OF CHALLENGE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL IN ITA NO.892/MDS./13 IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS QUA THE ADDIT ION OF EXCESS STOCK ONLY. M/S.KUMBAKONAM SILVER SHOP 10 14. COMING TO THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIO N 271AAA OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE PLEADED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR DELETION OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IT HAD AGREED TO THE ADDITIONS ONLY TO PURCHASE PEACE IN T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, BY TAKING NOTICE O F THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AND CONSEQUENT ADDITIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED PENALTY OF ` 1,34,352/- AFTER COMPUTING THE SAME AT ` 28,392/- SALES DATA FROM IBM SERVER, OLD GOLD PURCH ASE, GOLD COIN PURCHASE, UNEXPLAINED CASH AND EXCESS STOCK OF GOLD TO THE TUNE OF ` 32,538/-, ` 8,816/-, ` 5,091/- & ` 1,34,352/- RESPECTIVELY. 15. IN PENALTY APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED T HE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS IN PART AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY OF ON LY ` 1,34,352/- QUA EXCESS STOCK. IN THIS BACKDROP, THE PENALTY IN VOLVED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS ONLY ` 1,34,352/- IN ITA NO.22/11-12. 16. NOW WE COME TO THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS FIRST. THERE IS HARDLY ANY DISPUTE ON THE FACTUAL POSITION THAT THE ADDITION HAS ARISEN FROM A DIFFERENCE IN THE JEWELLERY STOCK OF 1221.380 GRAMS(SUPRA). AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME COULD HAVE ARISEN BECAUSE OF SOME FAULT IN WEIGHING SCALE OR IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT HUGE QUANTITY OF STOCK IS INVOLVED. IT IS AN ADMITT ED FACT THAT WAS M/S.KUMBAKONAM SILVER SHOP 11 TOTAL STOCK OF 183644.530 GRAMS. COMPARED TO THE TO TAL STOCK, ULTIMATE DIFFERENCE HARDLY COMES TO 1.5%. THERE IS ALSO A COMMON PRACTICE IN THE JEWELLERY BUSINESS WHEREIN S OME PRECIOUS STONES ARE EMBEDDED ON THE ORNAMENTS. UNDI SPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IS JEWELLERY RETAILER. IT IS ALSO NOT A CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE STOCK IS OF PURE GOLD WITHOUT ANY IMPURITIES. IN THIS BACKGROUND AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE T OTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE EXERCISE OU R DISCRETION VESTED UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE ACT AND HOLD THAT ADDITION OF 800 GRAMS OUT OF TOTAL DIFFERENCE WEIGHING 1221.380 GR AMS WOULD BE JUST AND PROPER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE GETS RE LIEF OF 421.380 GRAMS AND APPEAL NO.892/MDS./13 IS PARTLY ACCEPTED. AS A SEQUEL TO OUR DISCUSSION IN THE QUANTUM PROC EEDINGS HEREIN ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE S TOCK ALONG WITH ALL NECESSARY PARTICULARS REQUIRED UNDER SECTI ON 271AAA(2) OF THE ACT, THE PRESENT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR CONFI RMATION OF THE PENALTY. ACCORDINGLY, ITA NO.891/MDS./13 IS ACCEPTE D. M/S.KUMBAKONAM SILVER SHOP 12 ITA NO.1361/MDS./13 & C.O. NO.130/MDS./13 17. THIS REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL ASSESSEE ASSESSE ES CROSS OBJECTIONS EMANATE FROM A COMMON ORDER OF THE CIT(A )-II, COIMBATORE DATED 22.03.13 IN ITA NO.100/11-12 IN P ROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. 18. BEFORE US, THE REVENUE REITERATES THE GROUNDS AND STRONGLY ARGUES THAT THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY HELD IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SEIZED CASH IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH CAN BE ADJUSTED AS ADVANCE TAX IN THE NATURE OF EXISTING LIABILITY AND PRAYS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE APPEAL. 19. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE RELIES UPON THE CIT(A) S ORDER AS WELL AS PLEADINGS IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS AND PRAYS FOR REJECTION OF THE APPEAL. 20. CONCISE FACTS PERTAINING TO THIS APPEAL ARE TH AT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, AN AMOUNT OF ` 60 LAKHS HAD BEEN SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT. WE REITERATE THAT SEARCH WAS CONDUCTE D ON 29-01- 2009. THE ASSESSEE FILED A PETITION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT DATED 13.02.09 PRESSING FOR ADJUSTMENT OF THE AFORE SAID SEIZED CASH AS ITS ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY. VIDE ORDER DATED 29.06.2011, THE M/S.KUMBAKONAM SILVER SHOP 13 ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED UPON SEC.132B(1) OF THE AC T AND HELD THAT ADVANCE TAX SOUGHT TO BE ADJUSTED BY THE ASSE SSEE AGAINST THE SEIZED CASH IS NOT AN EXISTING LIABILITY SINC E A DEMAND UNDER SECTION 210 OF THE ACT DID NOT ARISE IN THE CASE IN HAND. 21. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CASE LAW OF CIT VS. ASHOK KUMAR (20 11) 334 ITR 355 (P&H) AND THAT OF VISHWANATH KHANNA VS. UOI (20 11) 225 ITR 548(DEL.) IN HOLDING THAT THE ADVANCE TAX IS AL SO LIABLE TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE CASH SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF S EARCH. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON FINANCE BILL, 2013 PRESENTED ON 28.02.2013 PROPOSING TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B & 234C WITH EFFECT FROM 01 .06.2013 I.E. ONLY PROSPECTIVELY. AS PER THE CIT(A), IN THI S BACKDROP OF FACTS, THE AFORESAID CASE LAW WOULD STILL HOLD GOOD AND THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS ARE LIABLE TO BE ACCEPTED. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AND ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED CROSS OBJECTIONS TO SUPPORT CIT(A)S ORDE R. 22. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION T O THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE CASE FILE. THE SOLE G RIEVANCE OF THE M/S.KUMBAKONAM SILVER SHOP 14 REVENUE IS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY GRANTED RELI EF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE SEIZED CASH CAN BE ADJ USTED AS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADVANCE TAX. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION COMES TO BE ` 18,16,470/-, WHICH WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON 03.08.11. AS STATED HEREIN ABOVE, THE CASE LAW OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT (SU PRA) HAS CATEGORICALLY SETTLED THE ISSUE IN ASSESSEES FAVO UR BY HOLDING THAT SEIZED AMOUNT WOULD BE LIABLE TO BE ADJUSTED A GAINST ADVANCE TAX. WE ALSO FIND FROM THE ASSESSEES CROS S OBJECTIONS THAT THE FINANCE BILL (SUPRA) STAND NOTIFIED AS AN ACT RESULTING INTO INSERTION OF EXPLANTION-2 TO SEC.132B OF THE ACT. IT TRANSPIRES FROM THE ANNEXURE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CROSS OB JECTIONS THAT THE EXPLANATION TAKES EFFECT ONLY FROM 1 ST JUNE, 2013. IN OTHER WORDS, IT DOES NOT APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD WRONGLY DENIED THE BENEFIT OF ADJUSTME NT OF THE SEIZED CASH AGAINST ASSESSEES ADVANCE TAX LIABILIT Y. 23. CONSEQUENTLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D AND ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTIONS HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS . 24. TO SUM UP, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.890/MDS./13 & ITA NO.892/MDS./13 ARE PARTLY ALLO WED, AND M/S.KUMBAKONAM SILVER SHOP 15 ITA NO.891/MDS./13 & ITA NO.893/MDS./13 ARE ALLOWED . APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE ITA NO.1361 IS DISMISSED AND CROSS OBJECTIONS BY ASSESSEE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 29 TH AUGUST, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR.O.K.NARAYANAN) (S.S.GODARA ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED 29 TH AUGUST, 2013 . K S SUNDARAM COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE M/S.KUMBAKONAM SILVER SHOP 16