9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the CIT(A)-X, Ahmedabad dated 15-11-2006 for assessment year 2001-02 on the following ground: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts of the case in directing the A. O. to delete the demand levied u/s 201 (1) of the I. T. Act, at ₹ 35,77,200/- and interest charged u/s 201(1) (1A) of ₹ 3,21,948/- without appreciating the fact that there is no time limitation provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation of four years as decided by the various Tribunals of Bombay and Delhi. The order passed by the ITO is beyond the limitation period of four years from the end of the Financial Year of Assessment Year 2001-02. The appellant has also established that the party for which the TDS was to be deducted had already paid the taxes under self assessment. From the section 201 (1A) it is seen that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . I do no consider it necessary to adjudicate upon other grounds of appeal. 3. The learned DR submitted that there is no time limitation provided under the Act to pass the impugned order by the AO. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission made before the authorities below and submitted that order passed by the AO is time barred. The AO passed the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f knowledge was no relevant for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction in so far as the provisions of the Act were concerned. Time limit of four years prescribed by the Tribunal called for no interference and action was to be initiated by the competent authority under the Act where no limitation was prescribed within the period of four years. The acceptance of liability by the assessee would not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
