9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: The appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-X, Ahmedabad dated 15-11-2006 for assessment year 2001-02 regarding the deletion of demand levied u/s 201(1) of the I. T. Act and interest charged u/s 201(1)(1A).
Summary: Issue 1: Time limitation for passing orders u/s 201(1) and interest u/s 201(1A): The CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the demand and interest, noting that the order passed by the AO was time-barred, beyond the limitation of four years. The appellant established that the party had already paid taxes under self-assessment. The CIT(A) accepted the plea of the assessee regarding time limitation based on various Tribunal decisions. The amendment in section 201(1A) effective from 1/6/2006 made it mandatory for the appellant to pay interest before furnishing the quarterly statement. The order passed by the ITO was beyond the four-year period, leading to the deletion of the interest levied u/s 201(1A). Issue 2: Judicial precedent and time limitation for passing orders: The learned DR argued that there was no time limitation under the Act for passing the order, while the Counsel for the assessee contended that the order was time-barred. The AO's order was passed after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant financial year. Citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation, it was emphasized that the time limit of four years prescribed by the Tribunal was crucial, and action had to be initiated within this period. Conclusion: Considering the findings of the CIT(A) and the judicial precedent, the Tribunal held in favor of the assessee, dismissing the departmental appeal. The judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court supported the view that the date of knowledge was irrelevant for exercising jurisdiction under the Act, emphasizing the importance of the four-year time limit. The acceptance of liability by the assessee did not extend the period of limitation. The departmental appeal was accordingly dismissed based on the established legal principles. Order pronounced on 09-04-2010.
|
