2013-VIL-652-BOM-DT
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2059 OF 2011
Date: 18.02.2013
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, MUMBAI
Vs
MR. JAFFERALI KASAMLAI RATTONSEY
Mr. P.C. Chhotaray with Padma Divakar for the appellant.
Mr. Satish R. Mody with Aasifa Khan for the respondent.
BENCH
J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.
JUDGMENT
4. Counsel for the respondent-assessee states that the issue arising in the present case is covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of CIT V/s. Shri Jyotindra B. Mody in Income Tax Appeal No.3741 of 2010 decided on 21st September, 2011. In the above case, this Court has held that amounts found during the search proceedings be adjusted towards advance tax liability when so requested by the assessee. In such circumstances, this Court held that no interest under Sections 234B & 234C of the Act is chargeable.
5. Mr. Chhotaray, counsel for the revenue submits that the decision in the matter of Jyotindra B. Mody (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in that case, the assessee had addressed a letter to the assessing officer requesting him to adjust the cash amount found during the search towards advance tax, while in this case, no such letter has been written. The Tribunal in the impugned order records a fact that in a statement recorded during the course of the search, the respondent-assessee had clearly stated that the amount found during the course of search should be adjusted against his tax liability. Admittedly, the seized amount of Rs. 41 lakhs was with the revenue at all times from the date of seizure in July, 2006. In this view of the matter, the distinction sought to be made by Mr. Chhotaray between request being made in a letter for adjustment of the seized amounts from that of a request being made in a statement made under Sections 132(4) of the Act is not a distincion which would warrant non application of the decision of this Court in the matter of Jyotiendra B.Modi (supra). In these circumstances, the amount of Rs. 41 lakhs seized during the course of the search be adjusted / considered while computing the interest leviable under Sections 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act.
6. Accordingly, in our view the question as framed stands itxal-1646-12covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of this Court in the matter of Jyotindra B. Mody (supra). Thus, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that VATinfoline Multimedia is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.