9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noticed that no tax was deducted under Section 194 I though the payment of rent to each person exceeded ₹ 1,20,000/-. The details of payment of hoarding rent to persons as noted by Assessing Officer are as under:- Sr. No. Name of the Persons Amount paid during the year under consideration 1 Graphic Ads 1,24,000/- 2 Sav Shanti Investment P.Ltd. 1,46,666/- 3 Pratik Sharma 1,00,000/- & 80,000/- 4 Court Receiver of Bombay H.C. 1,62,000/- & 5,67,000/- 5 Chief Cashier of W.R., Mumbai 3,60,000/- & 3,96,000/- 6 Rim Zim H. Shah 3,21,000/- Total 22,56,666/- 4. Assessing Officer after considering the submissions of the Assessee worked out the demand payable under Section 201(1) read with section 194 I and interest under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued beyond a period of four years. Hon. Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs Patel Raghav Nath AIR 1969 SC 1297 has also held that in case no time limit has been prescribed in the statute then the proceeding should be initiated within the reasonable time and reasonable time has been considered as four years. Further w.e.f 01.04.2010 subsection 3 of section 201 has been inserted by the Finance (no. 2) Act, 2009 prescribing time limit of four years, though not applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, respectfully following the decision of the Hon. ITAT Mum. And Hon. Supreme Court, the tax demand of ₹ 2,04,890/- raised u/s 201(1) r.w.s. 194 1 and the interest of ₹ 1,65,737/- u/s 201(1A) is direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e payments were made in financial year 2002-03 and the order under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the IT Act was passed by the Assessing Officer on 31.03.2009 that is beyond four years from the end of the relevant financial year and therefore the order of the AO is time barred. She placed reliance on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Del.) where the Hon. High Court has held that the proceedings under Section 201(1)/201(1A) could be initiated only within three years from the end of assessment year or within four years from the end of relevant financial year. She also placed reliance in the decision on the case of CIT vs. N.H.K Japan Broad-Casting Corporation 2008 305 ITR 137 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
