9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efly the facts of the case are that a survey u/s 133A was conducted in the case of the assessee on 12/02/2004. Subsequent to the survey, show cause letters were issued to the assessee company seeking various information. Based on the information submitted by the assessee, the AO found that the assessee had defaulted in respect of tax deduction at source for the following type of payments made: Assessment Years: 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 (a) Interest payment on unsecured loans (b) Payment of salary (AY 2001-02 only) (c) Payment of professional fees (d) Payment to contractors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee held that the assessee had no occasion to have the benefit of the said decision at the time of the filing of the appeal and considering the fact stated by the assessee that the omission to take the ground of appeal by the assessee was not willful or unreasonable, therefore, the additional ground raised by the assessee for all the three years was admitted for adjudication. 5. The CIT(A) held as follows: "3.0 First I take up the additional grounds raised by the appellant. The appellant had contended that the order u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) are bad in law since the same cannot be passed beyond a period 4 years. As stated earlier the appellant while filing the additional ground has relied on the decision of ITAT, Hyder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 94 has held (headnote) ".... Initiation of proceedings u/s 201(1) against the assessee in respect of AY 1990-91 was barred by limitation having been initiated beyond a reasonable period of time of 4 years......". Relying on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai and also the decision of Delhi High Court, the Hon'ble ITAT "A" Bench at para 13 of the order in the case of AP State Civil Supllies Corporation has held as under: "13. Thus, in our view the orders passed by the AO on 30/11/2006 in the instant case for the FYs 1998-99 to 2001-02 relevant to AY 1999-00 to 2002-03 are barred by limitation having been passed beyond a reasonable period of time of 4 years and accordingly the common grounds no.1 to 3 taken by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... completion of proceedings u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the IT Act. There are various case laws which support the contention of the Department. Reference may be drawn to CIT Vs. Tirchur Coop. Bank Ltd., [2003] 184 CTR (Ker.), Secretary Sultan Battery Co-op Housing Society Ltd., Vs. CIT [2003] 181 CTR (Ker) 219, ITAT decision in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Vs. DCIT [2005] 2 SOT 784 (Mumbai.) 5. The reliance placed by the CIT(A) on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation [2008] 217 CTR (Delhi) 392 is not applicable in this case as the initiation of proceedings u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) are within the period of four years from the end of the relevant Financial Years. & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
