SURESH CHANDRA PURWAR (HUF),ALLAHABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD

ITA 221/ALLD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 August 2021AY 2011-1213 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 132B regarding adjustment of seized cash was prospective and not applicable to the assessment year in question. Interest under Section 234A was upheld due to the late filing of the return, but the AO was directed to recompute interest under Section 234B considering adjustments for taxes paid and the date of filing the return.

What were the facts?

Following a search and seizure operation, the assessee HUF filed its return of income late. The assessee claimed that cash seized during the search should be adjusted against its tax liability, including interest under sections 234A and 234B. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) levied interest, which the assessee challenged.

What were the issues?

Whether interest under sections 234A and 234B is leviable when cash seized during search operations was available for adjustment against tax liability, and whether the amendment to Section 132B is retrospective.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132(1),Section 143(3),Section 153A,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 245D(4),Section 132B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD

Before: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija , CIT, DR
Pronounced: 31.08

PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee has arisen from the appellate order dated 29.09.2016 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II, Lucknow(hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”) , for assessment year(ay) 2011-12, the appellate proceedings had arisen before learned CIT(A) from consequential order dated 21.10.2015 passed by ld. Assessing Officer (hereinafter called “ the AO”) to Assessment Year: 2011-12 Suresh Chandra Purwar(HUF) give effect to the order dated 23.09.2015 passed by Settlement Commission u/s 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “ the AO”) . We have heard both the pa

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 132(1)

All 846 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →