9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) has decided this issue wrongly and illegally which is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law. Since the order passed after the expiry of limitation period, therefore, the same is hereby ordered to be set aside and accordingly appeal of the assessee is hereby accepted. See Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Versus M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited [2014 (7) TMI 265 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ]- Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. No.5190/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2017 - SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM For The Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi Manoj Dixit For TheRevenue : Shri M. C. Omi Ningshen ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The assessee has filed the present appeal against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not applicable and therefore no tax was required to be deducted 2(a) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer of levying interest under section 201(1A) of the Act amounting to ₹ 5,85,269/- on the ground that payment of interest is mandatory. (b) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in holding that though the assessee should not be held to be an assessee in default, the appellant would be liable to interest under section 201(1A) of the Act for the period commencing from the date on which tax was deducted to the date on which tax is actually paid. 3. The appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed: (i) not to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in support of its contentions, relies on the following judicial pronouncements: CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation[(2008) 305 ITR 137 (Del HC)] The Hon ble court held that, the date of knowledge was not relevant for the purposes of the exercising jurisdiction in so far as the provisions of the Act were concerned. The 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 by itself extend the period of limitation nor would it extend the reasonable time that was postulated by the scheme of the Act. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutory power of passing the order must be exercised within a reasonable period from issue of show cause notice. This reasonable period taking into consideration the various provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been held to be one year. The appellant, in support of its contentions, relies on the following judicial pronouncement: Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) v. Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. [(2014) 365 ITR 560 (Bom HC)] The Hon ble court held that, even though section 201 does not prescribe any limitation period for assessee being declared as an assessee in default yet revenue will have to exercise power in that regard within a reasonable time. The passing of the order under section 201(1) has to be withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited during the financial year relevant to the A.Y.2003-04. The assessee also filed to pay the tax deducted to credit of the Central Government as required u/s.200 of the Act within the specified time. In view of the said circumstances, the assessee was deemed to be in default in respect of the sum of ₹ 5,57,355/- being the amount of tax deductible. The interest was also chargeable u/s.201(1A) of the Act amounting to ₹ 5,85,269/-. Therefore, an amount of ₹ 11,42,624/- was assessed u/s.201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) who confirmed the order, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS:- 4. Firstly the assessee rais ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. This question has been answered by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in case titled as Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Vs. Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. [2014] 365 ITR 560, and by the case decided by Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai bench in ITA Nos.3512 to 3514/Mum/2004 for A.Y.2002-03 to 2004-05 in case of Hatway Cable and Datacom Limited (Formerly known as Hathway Cable and Datacom Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. The Tax Recovery Officer (TDS.) passed in assessee s own case dated 07.09.2016. It is specifically held that after issuance of notice the order should probably passed within one year and the proceeding was held to be time barred. The facts is not in dispute wherein the notice has been issued on 24.09.2003 u/s.201(1)/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
