9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 785 - AT - Income TaxTDS liability on banks - Validity of assessment - period of limitation - whether CIT(A) has erred in holding that the assessment order passed by the Ld.AO is after the time lapse of four years when the order was issued on 28.03.2016 which is well within the time limit of six years from the financial year? - Held that - The assessee is a nationalized bank who has preferred appeal against the demand notice issued against their four branches viz. Mint Street Branch, Purasawakkam Branch, Nungambakkam Branch and Mahalingapuram Branch. In the case of all the above mentioned branches of the assessee bank, the Ld.AO has levied interest invoking the provisions of Section 201 & 201(1A) of the Act. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) relying on the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case M.R. Shah J, S.H. Vora J 201, 201(3)(2016 (2) TMI 414 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) held that since the appellant had filed the returns in time, the demand which has been raised beyond 4 years is invalid. Since the Ld.CIT(A) has only followed the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court, we do not find it necessary to interfere in his order. - decided against revenue.
Issues:
Appeal against order passed by CIT (Appeals) for assessment year 2009-10 - Time limit for assessment order - Validity of demand notice issued to nationalized bank branches - Levying of interest under Section 201 & 201(1A) of the Act - Applicability of Gujarat High Court decision on time limit for raising demand. Analysis: The appeals by the Revenue were directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17 for the assessment year 2009-10. The main issue raised by the Revenue was regarding the timing of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Revenue contended that the CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that the assessment order was passed after the lapse of four years, whereas it was issued within the time limit of six years from the relevant financial year. The case involved a nationalized bank appealing against demand notices issued to four of its branches, namely Mint Street Branch, Purasawakkam Branch, Nungambakkam Branch, and Mahalingapuram Branch. The AO had levied interest under Section 201 & 201(1A) of the Act for all these branches. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) relied on a decision of the Gujarat High Court to rule that since the appellant had filed returns on time, the demand raised beyond four years was deemed invalid. The CIT (Appeals) merely followed the precedent set by the Gujarat High Court, and hence, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with his order. Ultimately, both appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, and the order was pronounced in open court on 20th August 2018 at Chennai. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the statutory time limits for issuing demand notices and the relevance of judicial precedents in determining the validity of such demands.
|
