9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 991X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the financial year. The orders u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) was finally passed on 30.05.2016, which is more than eight years from the end of the financial year. Therefore, it cannot be stated in facts of this case, the order u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) was passed within a reasonable time and the prescription of limitation mentioned u/s 201(3) and (4) - the order passed u/s 201(1)/ 201(1A) was barred by limitation in the facts and circumstances of the case. - Decided in favour of assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was further contended by the assessee that the order passed u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act is barred by limitation. The CIT(A) following the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case in I.T.A. No. 222/Coch/2013 (order dated 27/09/2013) held that the assessee is liable for tax deduction at source u/s. 195 of the Act with regard to payment made by it for managerial services fees to UST Global Inc, USA. The plea of the assessee that the order passed u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act was barred by limitation was also rejected by the CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that the issue on merits is covered agains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA No. 99-104/Coch/2017, the Tribunal upheld the order passed u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. In view of the above orders of the Tribunal, on merits, we hold that the assessee was liable for withholding tax u/s. 195 of the Act in respect of payment made by it for managerial services fees. 6.1 The question whether the order passed u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act for the assessment year 2007-08, was barred by limitation was decided against the assessee by the CIT(A), by observing as under: 10. "It is observed from the provisions of section 201(3) that the time limit period of six years is applicable for the failure to deduct whole or any part of the tax from the person resident in India a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Act. The Special Bench of the Tribunal was confirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income-tax (International Taxation) v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. reported in [(2014) 48 taxmann.com 150 (Bombay)]. The Special Bench order was considering payments made to non-residents. In our case also the payees are non-resident and that was the reason for the CIT(A) to hold that the time limit mentioned u/s 201(3) of the I.T.Act does not have application to this case. 6.3 When no time limit is prescribed under the statute for initiating and completion of a proceedings, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Iswara Bhat v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax [(1993) 200 ITR 238 (Ker.)] had held that the powers shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r initiating and completion of reassessment u/s 147 of the I.T. Act was upheld to be correct. The Hon'ble High Court was considering the following substantial question of law:- "(1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in prescribing the timelimit for initiation and completion of proceedings under sub-sections (1) and (1A) of Section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the absence of any time-limit provided under the said Act? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in prescribing the timelimit statutorily provided for initiation and completion of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the purposes of sub-sections (1) and (1A) of Section 201 of the said Act?" In deciding the above question, the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
