9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act - even though the orders are passed beyond four years from FY 2003-04 and 2004-05, but within six years from the relevant financial year – Decided in favour of Revenue. - ITA No. 1516/Hyd/2008, ITA No. 314/Hyd/2012, ITA No. 315/Hyd/2012 - - - Dated:- 8-8-2013 - Shri Chandra Poojari And Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan,JJ. For the Appellant : Sri B. V. Prasad Reddy For the Respondent : Sri V. Shiv Kumar ORDER Per Chandra Poojari, AM: The above three appeals by the Revenue are directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-II, Hyderabad dated 26.08.2008 for assessment years 2001- 02 to 2003-04. Since all the appeals belong to one assessee and the issues involved are common in nature, these appeals are clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience. 2. The Revenue raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A)-II, Hyderabad erred in holding that a time limit of four years is reasonable for passing orders u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) when no such provision exists in the statute. 2. Whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penses was in the nature of contract on which the provisions of sec. 194C is applicable. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer worked out the demand and interest payable on account of the defaults as above and has raised the following demands: A.Y. Demand u/s. 201(1) (Rs.) Demand u/s. 201(1A) (Rs.) 2001-02 2,66,57,863 2,23,92,807 2002-03 6,91,63,673 4,97,97,844 2003-04 5,48,96,842 3,29,38,107 5. Being aggrieved by the action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) following the decision of Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation in ITA No. 1117 to 1122/Hyd/2007 for A.Ys. 1999-2000 to 2004-05 observing order passed u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) for FY 2000-01 to 2002-03 relevant to A.Ys. 2001-02 and 2003-04 were passed on 2.4.2008 which is beyond period of 4 years from the end of the respective financial year. Accordingly, he quashed all the orders passed u/s. 201(1) and 201(1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case a survey was conducted on 03.03.2006 and large scale violation of TDS provisions was noticed by the Assessing Officer accordingly, proceedings were initiated by him in the months of August and September, 2006 and after due inquiry the order was passed by the ACIT (TDS) Circle- 15(1) on 02.04.2008. Hence, the tax due as a result of Assessing Officer's order u/s 201 and 201(1A) of IT Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 was much more than one lakh rupees each. Accordingly, following Special Bench judgement referred to the above in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra (supra) the proceedings were initiated and completed well within the time limit of 6 years prescribed for completing the re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 r/w 149 of the IT Act, 1961. Hence, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is well within time and not barred by limitation. 9. The DR further submitted that it is settled proposition in law and held by the Apex Court in Hindusthan Times vs. Union of India and others, order dated 07.01.1998, that when no provision for limitation has been incorporated in the Statute, then the courts cannot introduce such limitation. Further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s-a-vis the facts under consideration . He, therefore, submitted that the reliance on the said decision of the Apex Court is not apposite. As regards the other cases cited by the Department, he submitted that the issue in question has been discussed threadbare by the Hon ble Special Bench which disagreed by the DR who argued that in the absence of time limit specified under section 201, action can be taken at any point of time. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in para 14.4 held as under: In view of the foregoing discussion we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the contention of the learned DR that in the absence of time limit specified under section 201, action can be taken at any point of time. 13. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In the present case a common order was passed u/s 201(1) 201(1A) on 02/04/2008 for the AYs 2001-02, 2002-03 2003-04. The contention of the assessee s counsel is that in view of the judgment of the special bench in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Vs. DCIT, 122 TTJ 577 (SB)(Mum.), the order passed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation as the order has not been passed within a pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of ITO v. Delhi Development Authority [2001] 252 ITR 772 by holding as under: order under section 201(1) is to be treated as an order of assessment as per section 2(8) assessment includes reassessment , then it becomes manifest that the time-limit for initiating and completing the proceedings under section 201(1) has to be at par with the time-limit available for initiating and completing the reassessment, more so when the scope of section 147 also ropes in the cases of assessment apart from reassessment. 16. In that view of the matter, it is manifest that once a particular view has been expressed by the hon'ble Supreme Court on an issue, then any contrary view taken by the other High Courts has to be considered as impliedly overruled. 17. Thus, the question of limitation and the contention raised on behalf of the assessee, in an attempt to persuade us to depart from it, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed as devoid of any merit. 18. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2001-02 in ITA No. 1516/Hyd/2008 and for AY 2002-03 and 2003-04 in ITA Nos. 314 315/Hyd/12, the order passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
