2017 (2) TMI 789 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of order u/s.201(1) - period of limitation for declaring Assessee in default - time limit for proceedings u/s 201(1) and (1A) - Held that - After issuance of notice the order should probably passed within one year and the proceeding was held to be time barred. The facts is not in dispute wherein the notice has been issued on 24.09.2003 u/s.201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Act and thereafter the order was passed u/s.201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Act on 28.03.2011 after the expiry of more than seven years . In view of the said circumstances and in view of the above mentioned law, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided this issue wrongly and illegally which is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law. Since the order passed after the expiry of limitation period, therefore, the same is hereby ordered to be set aside and accordingly appeal of the assessee is hereby accepted. See Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Versus M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited 2014 (7) TMI 265 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether payments made for pay channel cost and feed charges to distributor of signal are liable for deduction under section 194C of the Act?
2. Whether interest levied under section 201(1A) of the Act is justified?
3. Whether the Assessing Officer's order under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act was passed within a reasonable period?
4. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee should be allowed?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant contested that payments for pay channel cost and feed charges to distributors of signals do not constitute a contract for work under section 194C of the Act. The appellant argued that the payments were not for work but for facilitating signal relay, and thus, no tax deduction was required. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to deduct tax at source as required under section 194C of the Act, deeming the appellant in default. The Tribunal also noted that interest under section 201(1A) was correctly levied. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the appellant's contentions on this issue.

Issue 2:
Regarding the interest levied under section 201(1A) of the Act, the appellant argued against the mandatory nature of interest payment. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the interest levy, stating that the appellant was liable for interest from the date of tax deduction to the actual payment date. The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding the interest levy justified under the Act.

Issue 3:
The appellant raised concerns about the timing of the Assessing Officer's order under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act, emphasizing the need for a reasonable period for exercising statutory power. The Tribunal considered judicial pronouncements and concluded that the order passed after an extended period was time-barred. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's decision, allowing the appellant's appeal on this issue.

Issue 4:
The Tribunal, based on the legal analysis of the issues raised by the appellant, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's decision on the timing of the Assessing Officer's order to be incorrect and unsustainable in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and accepted the appellant's appeal, emphasizing that the order was passed after the expiry of the limitation period.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the Commissioner's decision on the timing of the Assessing Officer's order and the related legal issues. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act and legal precedents cited during the proceedings.