9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 462 - AT - Income TaxValidity of order passed u/s 201(3)(i) - period of limitation - Short deduction of tds - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the order was framed on 30.03.2018 and the impugned financial year 2010-11. It is true that amendments has been brought in the statue w.e.f. 01.10.2014 but in our considered opinion the said amendment is prospective as was held in the case of Connaught Plaza Restaurants P. Ltd. 2022 (1) TMI 409 - ITAT DELHI Thus we hold that the order is barred by limitation and is liable to be quashed. Appeal of assessee allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of order u/s 201(3)(i) of the Act due to limitation. 2. Onus of verifying tax paid and income declared by the deductee. Summary: 1. The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A)-38, Delhi dated 31.01.2020 for A.Y. 2011-12. The grievance raised was that the order was invalid and beyond the period of limitation u/s 201(3)(i) of the Act. The appellant contended that the order was void ab initio and erred in placing the onus on the appellant to verify tax details, which should have been the department's responsibility. 2. The Assessing Officer directed the assessee to pay TDS on CAM charges under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. The dispute arose regarding the TDS rate applicable to CAM charges, with the AO insisting on 10% under section 194I instead of the 2% deducted by the assessee under section 194C. The CIT(A) upheld the assessment, leading to the appeal. 3. The appellant argued that the order dated 30.03.2018 was time-barred as it exceeded the limitation period. The coordinate Bench's decision in a similar case supported the appellant's claim that the amendment to extend the time limit was not retrospective and could not save the order passed beyond the original limitation period. 4. The Tribunal, following the precedent, held the order dated 30.03.2018 as barred by limitation and consequently quashed it, leading to the allowance of the appeal. The merits of the case were not discussed due to the order's invalidity. 5. The appeal was allowed, and the order was pronounced on 31.05.2023.
|
