Govindprasad G. Sarawagi HUF v. The DCIT, Central Circle- 4, Surat
[Citation -2016-LL-0926-54]

Citation 2016-LL-0926-54
Appellant Name Govindprasad G. Sarawagi HUF
Respondent Name The DCIT, Central Circle- 4, Surat
Court ITAT-Ahmedabad
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 26/09/2016
Assessment Year 2009-10
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags mistake apparent from record • returned income • seized cash • advance tax • cash seized
Bot Summary: CIT(A) erred in confirming the findings of the A.O. by which the A.O. denied the claim of credit towards tax payment. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the returned income of the assessee at Rs. 7,63,23,722/- was assessed at the same figure and accordingly credit was given for prepaid taxes after due verification. 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. Counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that an amount of Rs. 30,78,600/- was cash seized during the course of search and the same ought to have been adjusted against the advance tax liability. 154 of the Act, the order made by the A.O. was erroneous on facts and further the First Appellate Authority also fell into an error by confirming the said order of the A.O. Per contra, the ld. The revenue is in possession of the cash seized as no refund was given to the assessee, therefore 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 Income Tax liability and then the interest should be levied as per the provisions of the law. We set aside the issue to the files of the A.O. with a direction to verify the amount of cash seized at the time of search and then adjust such seized cash towards the tax liability of the assessee and then levy interest as per the provisions of the law.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD 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. V/S DCIT, Central Circle- Sarawagi HUF V-2131, 4, Surat Surat Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002 (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 Assessee is directed against order of Ld. CIT(A)-II, Ahmedabad dated 21.03.2013 pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10. 2 ITA No. 1631/ahd/2013 . A.Y. 2009-10 2. sum and substance of grievance of assessee is that ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming findings of A.O. by which A.O. denied claim of credit towards tax payment. 3. Briefly stated facts of case are that returned income of assessee at Rs. 7,63,23,722/- was assessed at same figure and accordingly credit was given for prepaid taxes after due verification. 4. However, invoking provisions of section 154 of Act, A.O. observed that credit of Rs. 30,78,600/- was not supported by any challan. Considering this as mistake apparent from record, A.O. denied claim of Rs. 30,78,600/-. 5. Assessee carried matter before ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 6. Before us, ld. counsel for assessee vehemently stated that amount of Rs. 30,78,600/- was cash seized during course of search and same ought to have been adjusted against advance tax liability. It is say of ld. counsel that since credit originally given by A.O, which was withdrawn by order made u/s. 154 of Act, order made by A.O. was erroneous on facts and further First Appellate Authority also fell into error by confirming said order of A.O. Per contra, ld. D.R. strongly supported findings of revenue authorities. 7. We have given thoughtful consideration to orders of authorities below qua facts. It is undisputed fact that certain cash was seized at time of search. We also find that application 3 ITA No. 1631/ahd/2013 . A.Y. 2009-10 was made by assessee for adjustment of cash so seized towards Income Tax liability. revenue is in possession of cash seized as no refund was given to assessee, therefore it is but logical that credit of such cash seized at time of search should be given and same should be adjusted towards Income Tax liability and then interest should be levied as per provisions of law. 8. We, therefore, set aside issue to files of A.O. with direction to verify amount of cash seized at time of search and then adjust such seized cash towards tax liability of assessee and then levy interest as per provisions of law. 9. In result, appeal of assessee is treated 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 Order forwarded to:- 1. Appellant. 2. Respondent. 3. CIT (Appeals) 4. CIT concerned. 5. DR., ITAT, Ahmedabad. 6. Guard File. By ORDER Deputy/Asstt.Registrar ITAT,Ahmedabad Govindprasad G. Sarawagi HUF v. DCIT, Central Circle- 4, Surat
Report Error