9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this month June, 2008 which ended on 31.03.2009. Hence, two years from the end of the financial year would be over of 31.03.2011. If the AO wants to pass any order u/s.201(1) and 201(1A) to be passed within 31.03.2011. In the present case, the said impugned order passed on 28.03.2014, i.e. after the time limit available to pass the order u/s.201 & u/s.201(1A) of the Act. In our opinion, the said order is barred by limitation, cannot stand of its own leg. Accordingly we annul the impugned order which is bad in law. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No. 806/Mds./2016 - - - Dated:- 17-6-2016 - Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member And Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member Appellant by : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Without prejudice, the CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that in view of the retrospective amendment the assessee could not have anticipated the amendment and deducted tax at source at the rate applicable for disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) would be equally applicable for TDS under Section 201(1). 6 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that at that when the order under Section 201 (1) was passed viz 28.03.2014 under Section 201(3) order passed by the Assessing officer is time barred. 7 The Commissioner of Income tax (AppeaLs) ought to have appreciated that prior to the amendment effective from 01.10.2014, under Section 201(3) no order deeming the persons to be assessee in defauLt can be passed after e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n deduction of TDS u/s 201(1) and 201(1A). The assessee responded to the notice submitted the details requested, along with its objection to the Show Cause notice. Further, ld.A.R submitted before the ld. Assessing Officer that the ITAT in the case of appellant for the assessment year in question had already held that the remittances do not constitute royalty. The LAO, however passed an order holding that the remittances towards International bandwidth and communication charges aggregated to `4,36,62,827/- constitute royalty following the decision of the Verizon Communication Singapore Pte Ltd- (Tax case Appeal No s 147 of 149 of 201 k and 230 of 2012) and the ld. Assessing Officer disallowed the remittance towards international bandwid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Now, the contention of assessee s counsel is that since the financial year involved herein is 2007-08, which is commencing from First April,2007 and ending on 31.03.2008, as such the proviso to section is applicable and the order u/s.201(1) and the order u/s.201(1A) shall be passed on or before March 31st day of 2011. According to the ld.A.R., in this case the order u/s.201 was passed on 28.03.2014, which is bad in law and also time barred. 6.2 We have carefully gone through the provisions of the section 201(3) of the Act. As per proviso discussed in earlier, the time limit available to the AO to pass order u/s.201(1) and 201(1A) is as per provisions of the section 201(3)(i) i.e. two years from the end of the financial year in which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
