2015 (10) TMI 1505

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, M/s. BA Continuum India Pvt. Ltd (formerly known as BA Continuum Solutions Pvt. Ltd) is engaged in the business of providing information technology and information technology enabled services to its group companies. The assessee filed eTDS return for the first and second quarters of the financial year 2007-08 in Form 24Q. The Assessing Officer passed orders under section 201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on February 13, 2012 raising demands of Rs. 1,09,79,673 and Rs. 91,05,577 for the first and second quarters respectively. 3. Aggrieved by these orders, the assessee has filed the appeals for both quarter .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aring of the appeal, so as to enable the appellate authority to decide this appeal according to law." 4. Before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), it was submitted that as per the proviso to section 201(3) of the Act, an order under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act for the financial year beginning on or before April 1, 2007 is required to be passed by March 31, 2011. The said proviso to section 201(3) is reproduced below : "'Provided that such order for a financial year commencing on or before the 1st day of April, 2007 may be passed at any time on or before 31st day of March, 2011.' Since the abovementioned order relates to the financial year 2007- 08, the time barring date for passing the said order was March 31, 20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on September 6, 2011 and as per the amended provisions, no order shall be passed after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the said statement is filed. 4. Any other ground arisen during the course of proceedings with the permission of the hon'ble Bench." 7. The learned Departmental representative pointed out that the alternate ground raised by the assessee has not been considered by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We find that the learned authorised representative for the assessee who appeared before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has not discussed this ground before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), or even if he had raised the ground, the order of the Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X