Chandrarlal Parasaram Chhabriya, Kolhapur V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

MA 38/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5251 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL CHAWARE
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 234B; 132; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHE A, PUNE , . . , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM MA NO.33/PUN/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1056/PUN/2012) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) MEENA CHANDARLAL CHHABRIYA, OM SAI, 235/4 B, TARABAI PARK, DIST. KOLHAPUR. PAN : ACGPC8771L . APPELLANT VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR. . RESPONDENT MA NO.34/PUN/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1057/PUN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) SHRI PARASARAM ACHANTRAI CHHABRIYA (HUF), OM SAI, 235/4 B, TARABAI PARK, DIST. KOLHAPUR. PAN : AAAHC4059F . APPELLANT VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR. . RESPONDENT MA NO.35/PUN/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1058/PUN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SHRI PARASARAM ACHANTRAI CHHABRIYA, OM SAI, 235/4 B, TARABAI PARK, DIST. KOLHAPUR. PAN : AALPC1126G . APPELLANT VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR. . RESPONDENT MA NO.36/PUN/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.1059 & 1060/PUN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 & 2005-06) JAMANABAI PARASARAM CHHABRIYA, OM SAI, 235/4 B, TARABAI PARK, DIST. KOLHAPUR. PAN : AAGPC8790H . APPELLANT M. MA NOS.33 TO 39/PUN/2016 VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR. . RESPONDENT MA NO.37/PUN/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.1061 & 1062/PUN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 & 2005-06) SHRI LALCHAND PARASARAM CHHABRIYA (HUF), OM SAI, 235/4 B, TARABAI PARK, DIST. KOLHAPUR. PAN : AAAHC4058A . APPELLANT VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR. . RESPONDENT MA NO.38/PUN/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.1063 & 1064/PUN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 & 2005-06) SHRI CHANDARLAL PARASARAM CHHABRIYA (HUF), OM SAI, 235/4 A, TARABAI PARK, DIST. KOLHAPUR. PAN : AAAHC3961N . APPELLANT VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR. . RESPONDENT MA NO.39/PUN/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.1065 TO 1069/PUN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 TO 2008-09) SHRI CHANDARLAL PARASARAM CHHABRIYA, OM SAI, 235/4 A, TARABAI PARK, DIST. KOLHAPUR. PAN : AASPC4715G . APPELLANT VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR. . RESPONDENT APPELLANTS BY : SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANIL CHAWARE DATE OF HEARING : 06-01-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06-01-2017 M. MA NOS.33 TO 39/PUN/2016 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM THE ABOVE ASSESSEES THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE MISCEL LANEOUS APPLICATIONS REQUEST THE TRIBUNAL TO RECTIFY CERTAI N ERRORS THAT HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO MI SCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.33/PUN/2016 IN THE CASE OF MEENA CHA NDARLAL CHHABRIYA DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE CONTENTS OF THE M ISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY HER WHICH READS AS UNDER : THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION BEFORE YOUR HONOR ARISES OUT OF ORDER THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER PASSED BY HON'BLE INCOME TAX AP PELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE. IN CONSOLIDATED ORDER AT ITA NO. 1056 TO 1069/PN/2012 IN CHHABRIA GROUP OF CASES. APPELLANT HAD RAISED A COMMON GROUND IN ALL THE CASES AS UNDER:- ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT DIRECTING THE A.O. TO TREAT THE AMOUNT SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AS ADVANCE TAX WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD ON VARIOUS OC CASION WRITTEN TO THE CONCERNED OFFICER TO APPROPRIATE THE DEPOSITS SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AGAINST THE TAX PAYABLE BY HIM RESULTING INTO UNJUSTIFIED LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, BAND C. THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENC H A, PUNE HAVE HELD AS UNDER: IN THE LAST GROUND, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CREDIT FO R THE CASH SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AS APPROPRIATION TOWARDS ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY AND COMPUTING THE INTEREST PAYABLE U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT, UNJUSTLY. ON THIS ASPECT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED TO THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN, IS PLACED CORRESPONDENCES WITH THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES WHEREB Y ASSESSEE HAD REQUESTED FOR ADJUSTMENT OF THE 'CASH SEIZED' DURING THE SEARCH AGAINST THE TAX LIABILITY. THE LEARNED COU NSEL POINTED OUT THAT THE TAX LIABILITY U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF TH E ACT HAS BEEN COMPUTED WITHOUT ALLOWING THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FO R THE APPROPRIATION OF CASH SEIZED AGAINST TAX LIABILITY. IN THE CONTEXT, IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PUSHPENDRA SUBHASHCHANDRA V/S A CIT VIDE ITA NO. 1077/PN/2012 DARTED 26.08.2013 WHEREBY SUCH PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED. A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID WOULD REVEAL THAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENTS OF THE H ON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT' IN THE CASE SHRI. JYOTINDRA B. MODY (SUPR A) AND JAFFERALIKASAMLAIRATTONSEY (SUPRA) THE TRIBUNAL HELD T HAT ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLES TO THE BENEFIT OF CASH + FD'S SEIZED DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY TH E DEPARTMENT M. MA NOS.33 TO 39/PUN/2016 THAT ASSESSEE MADE REQUEST TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ALLO WING CREDIT OF THE CASH SEIZED AGAINST THE TAX LIABILITY AN D THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT IN THE CASE OF PUS HPENDRA SUBHASHCHANDRA SUPRA, PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS JUSTIFIED. TH E ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN APPROACHED THE ADMINISTRATI VE AUTHORITIES BELOW, IN OUR VIEW, IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE I N AS MUCH AS THE PRIMARY PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS OF DENYING ITS LIABIL ITY TOWARDS PAYMENTS OF INTEREST U/S 234A,234B AND 234C OF THE ACT , WHICH CAN BE AGITATED IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN COMING TO SU CH CONCLUSION, WE THEREFORE FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PUSHPENDRA SUBHASHCHANDRA (SUPRA) AND D IRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW APPROPRIATE RELIEF TO THE ASSE SSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND THEREAFTER PASS AN ORDER AFRESH AS P ER LAW ON THIS ASPECT. THUS, ON THIS GROUND ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS MOST HUMBLY THAT, IN THE SAID ORDERS WH ILE ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE'S GROUND THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS IN PARA 28 OF THEIR ORDER HAVE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR APPROPRIATION OF CASH SEIZED AGAINST THE TAX LIABILITY. IT IS PRAYED THAT, THE ASSESSE E HAD MADE THE SPECIFIC PRAYER BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, THAT TH E FD'S SEIZED SHOULD ALSO BE APPROPRIATED AGAINST THE TAX LIABILITY. IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT, IN THE ORDER OF THE HON' BLE TRIBUNAL THE ADJUSTMENT OF FO'S SEIZED HAS REMAINED TO BE MENTIONED . THE ASSESSEE PRAYS THE ABOVE ORDERS MAY KINDLY BE AMENDED ACCORDIN GLY TO INCLUDE ADJUSTMENTS OF SEIZED FO'S IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE SHALL REMAIN FOREVER GRA TEFUL. 3. HE SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS SELF-EXPLANATORY. REFERRI NG TO PAGES 39 AND 40 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW TH E ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DY.C IT FOR RELEASE OF THE FIXED DEPOSITS FOR PAYMENT OF TAXES. HE SUBMITTED THAT T HE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER FROM PARA NOS. 24 TO 29 WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE HAS OMITTED THE WORDS FIXED DEPOSITS AFTER THE WORDS CASH. HE ACCORDINGLY S UBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE SUITABLY MODIFIED. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND AN ERROR H AS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FROM PARA 24 TO 29 SINCE THE WORDS FI XED DEPOSITS WERE INADVERTENTLY OMITTED TO BE TYPED AFTER THE WORDS CASH. WE, THEREFORE, MODIFY M. MA NOS.33 TO 39/PUN/2016 THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND DIRECT THAT PARA 24 T O 29 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BE READ AS UNDER : 24. IN THE LAST GROUND, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE I S THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CREDIT F OR THE CASH AND FIXED DEPOSITS SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AS APPROPRIATION TOWARDS ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY AND COMPUTING THE INTEREST PA YABLE U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT, UNJUSTLY. 25. ON THIS ASPECT, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE REFERRED TO THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN IS PLACED CORRESPONDENCES WI TH THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES WHEREBY ASSESSEE HAD REQUESTED FOR ADJU STMENT OF THE CASH AND FIXED DEPOSITS SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH AGAINST THE TAX LIABILITY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT THE TAX LIABIL ITY U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT HAS BEEN COMPUTED WITHOUT ALLOW ING THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR APPROPRIATION OF CASH AND FIXED DEPOSITS SEIZED AGAINST TAX LIABILITY. IN THIS CONTEXT, IT HAS BEE N POINTED OUT THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PUSPHENDRA SUBHASHCHANDRA VS. ACIT VIDE ITA NO.1077/PN/2012 DA TED 26.08.2013 WHEREBY SUCH PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BE EN ALLOWED. 26. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE HAS DEFENDED THE ACTION O F THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BY POINTING OUT THAT THE ISSUE OF GRANT ING CREDIT FOR CASH AND FIXED DEPOSITS SEIZED AGAINST TAX LIABILITY IS AN ADMINISTRATION FUNCTIO N AND THE ASSESSEE MAY APPROACH THE ADMINISTRATIVE AU THORITIES. 27. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS. ON THIS ASPECT, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT SIMILAR CONTROVERSY HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PUSPHENDR A SUBHASHCHANDRA (SUPRA) AND THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREINAFTER :- 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING TWO DE CISIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (I) CIT, CENTRAL-I, MU MBAI VS. SHRI JYOTINDRA B. MODY IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 3741 OF 2010 JUDGMENT DATED 21 ST SEPTEMBER, 2011 AND (II) CIT, CENTRAL-I, MUMBAI VS . JAFFERALI KASAMLAI RATTONSEY IN INCOME TAX APPEAL N O. 2059 OF 2011 JUDGMENT DATED 18 TH FEBRUARY, 2013. HE SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE STANDS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ABOVE TWO DECISION S, MORE PARTICULARLY IN THE CASE OF MR. JAFFERALI KASAMLAI RATTONSEY (SU PRA). THE FACTS IN SAID CASE ARE IDENTICAL WITH THE ASSESSEES CASE. 5. WE HAVE ALSO HEARD THE LD. DR. HE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CASH W AS SEIZED BY ISSUING THE REQUISITION WARRANT WHICH WAS ADMITTED BY THE A SSESSEE AS HIS INCOME IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 132(4) AND IN THE SAID STATEMENT THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO A DJUST THE SAID CASH AGAINST HIS TAX LIABILITY FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE REQUISITION WARRANT WAS ISSUED ON 08-08-2008 AND CA SH WAS SEIZED BY THE RPF WHICH WAS IN THEIR CUSTODY. THE SAID DATE IS ADMITTEDLY BEFORE THE FIRST DATE OF THE PAYMENT OF THE INSTALLMENT OF THE ADVANCE TAX FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 I.E. 15 TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. WE FIND THAT THE ONLY REASON GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS THAT NO SPECIFIC APPLICATION WAS M. MA NOS.33 TO 39/PUN/2016 MADE AND HENCE, MERELY REQUESTING IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 132 (4) IS NOT SUFFICIENT. 6. IN THE CASE OF SHRI JYOTINDRA B. MODY (SUPRA) TH E IDENTICAL ISSUE IS CONSIDERED BY THEIR LORDSHIPS. IN THE SAID CASE , IN THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.18 LACS WAS TO BE SEIZED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PAID SUM OF RS.1.98 CRORES BY PAY ORD ER DATED 31-03- 2007. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT THE CASH SEIZED OF RS.18 LACS AND PAY ORDER AMOUNTING TO RS.1.98 CRORES PAID BY THE A SSESSEE BE ADJUSTED TOWARDS THE ADVANCE TAX PAYABLE ON THE ADD ITIONAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF SEA RCH IN THE SAID CASE ALSO THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSE SSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BUT WITHOUT GIVING THE BENEFIT OF RS.18 LA CS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND RS.1.98 CRORE PAID BY THE ASSE SSEE TOWARDS THE ADVANCE TAX. THE INTEREST WAS CHARGED U/S. 234A, 2 34B AND 234C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE SAID INTEREST. THE REVENUE HAS CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE HON'BLE H IGH COURT AND THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E REVENUE. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE DECISION IS AS UNDER: WE SEE NO MERIT IN THE ABOVE CONTENTION, BECAUSE, ONCE THE ASSESSEE OFFERS TO TAX THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME INCLU DING THE AMOUNT SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH, THEN THE LIABILITY TO PAY ADVANCE TAX IN RESPECT OF THAT AMOUNT ARISES EVEN B EFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. SECTION 132B(1) (I) OF THE ACT DOES NOT PROHIBIT UTILIZATION OF THE AMOUNT SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TOWARDS THE ADVANCE TAX PAYABLE ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME DECLARED DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE, PRIOR T O THE LAST DATE FOR PAYMENT OF LAST INSTALLMENT OF ADVANCE TAX , HAD IN FACT BY HIS LETTER DATED 14 TH MARCH, 2007 REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADJUST THE AMOUNTS TOWARDS THE EXISTING ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY. SINCE ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY IS TO BE CO MPUTED AND PAID IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT EVEN B EFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE ITAT IN HOLDING THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION WERE LIABLE TO BE ADJ USTED TOWARDS THE EXISTING ADVANCE TAX LIABILITY. 7. IN THE CASE OF JAFFERALI KASAMLAI RATTONSEY (SUP RA) RS.41 LACS WERE SEIZED. THE ASSESSEE GAVE THE STATEMENT ON 27 -07-2006 IN WHICH HE CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE SEIZED CASH MAY BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE TAX LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF THE DISCLO SURE. THE ASSESSEE WAS LEVIED THE INTEREST U/S. 234A, 234B AND 234C DISCAR DING THE REQUEST MADE BY HIM. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED TO THE TRIBUNA L AND THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE INTEREST LEVIED. THE DEPARTMENT CARRIE D THE MATTER FURTHER BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DELETING THE INTEREST LEV IED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF CASH SEIZED RS.42 LACS. I N OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEES CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION CITED (SUPRA). AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WE FIND THAT TOTAL INCOME TAX PAYABLE AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.39,53,2 15/- WHICH IS MORE LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF CASH SEIZED BY THE DEPARTME NT. WE, ACCORDINGLY, ALLOW THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSE E. 28. A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID WOULD REVEAL THAT AF TER CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF SHRI JYOTINDRA B. MODY (SUPRA) AND JAFFERALI KASAMLAI RA TTONSEY (SUPRA) THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE BEN EFIT OF CASH AND FIXED DEPOSITS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT ASS ESSEE MADE REQUEST TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ALLOWING CREDIT OF THE CASH AND FIXED DEPOSITS SEIZED AGAINST THE TAX LIABILITY AND THEREFORE, IN OUR VIE W, FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT IN THE CASE OF PUSPHENDRA S UBHASHCHANDRA (SUPRA), PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS JUSTIFIED. M. MA NOS.33 TO 39/PUN/2016 29. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN APPROACHED THE ADMI NISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES BELOW, IN OUR VIEW, IS OF NO CONSEQUENC E INASMUCH AS THE PRIMARY PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS OF DENYING ITS LIAB ILITY TOWARDS PAYMENTS OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT, WHI CH CAN BE AGITATED IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN COMING TO SUCH CONCLU SION, WE THEREFORE FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUN AL IN THE CASE OF PUSPHENDRA SUBHASHCHANDRA (SUPRA) AND DIRECT THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW APPROPRIATE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE A SSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD AND THEREAFTER PASS AN ORDER AFRESH AS PER LAW ON THIS ASPECT. THUS, ON THIS GROUND ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE REMAINING PART OF THE ORD ER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FI LED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ITSELF, I.E. ON 06 TH JANUARY, 2017. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (R .K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER PUNE, DATED : 06 TH JANUARY, 2017 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR; 4) THE CIT, KOLHAPUR; 5) THE DR, A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., PUNE