2016 (8) TMI 78 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of order u/s.201 & u/s.201(1A) - tds liability - period of limitation - Held that - The time limit available to the AO to pass order u/s.201(1) and 201(1A) is as per provisions of the section 201(3)(i) i.e. two years from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed in a case where the statement referred to in section 200. As per this time limit to pass order u/s.201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act is two years from the end of the financial year in which the above statement is filed. Since the last quarter i.e. 4th Quarter return filed on 12.06.2008, the financial year relevant to this month June, 2008 which ended on 31.03.2009. Hence, two years from the end of the financial year would be over of 31.03.2011. If the AO wants to pass any order u/s.201(1) and 201(1A) to be passed within 31.03.2011. In the present case, the said impugned order passed on 28.03.2014, i.e. after the time limit available to pass the order u/s.201 & u/s.201(1A) of the Act. In our opinion, the said order is barred by limitation, cannot stand of its own leg. Accordingly we annul the impugned order which is bad in law. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai dated 11.01.2016 for assessment year 2008-09.
2. Tax liability under section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) disputed.
3. Dispute over whether international bandwidth and communication charges constitute royalty or fees for technical services.
4. Claim of time-barred order under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai, for the assessment year 2008-09. The appellant contended that the order was contrary to law, facts, and circumstances of the case.
2. The dispute involved the tax liability under section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) amounting to &8377; 4,36,62,927 and &8377; 80,28,162, respectively. The appellant argued that no disallowance should be made for non-deduction of tax based on a previous Tribunal decision.
3. The issue of whether international bandwidth and communication charges constitute royalty or fees for technical services was raised. The appellant argued that as the expenditure was incurred outside India, it should not be considered taxable in India.
4. The Assessing Officer's order under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) was challenged on the grounds of being time-barred. The appellant contended that the order passed on 28.03.2014 was beyond the statutory time limit of two years from the end of the financial year, making it invalid.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the Commissioner's order citing discrepancies in law application and factual interpretation.
2. The appellant disputed the tax liability and interest under section 201(1) and 201(1A), arguing against the Assessing Officer's decision and citing a previous Tribunal ruling.
3. The contention regarding international bandwidth charges focused on the location of the transaction and the applicability of tax laws based on the nature of the services provided.
4. The issue of the time-barred order under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) was crucial, with the appellant arguing that the order exceeded the statutory time limit, rendering it invalid.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues and arguments presented in the judgment, addressing the grounds of appeal and the reasoning behind the decision.