9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect to the period to which the lapse pertains - thus impugned order is held to be time barred. - I.T.A. No. 2011/Ahd/2015 - - - Dated:- 13-11-2015 - Pramod Kumar, AM Tushar Hemani. for the appellant Anil Kumar.for the respondent ORDER Per Pramod Kumar, AM: 1. By way of this appeal the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 28th May, 2015 passed by the ld. CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under section 206(C(1) r.w.s. 206C(6) of the Incometax Act, 1961 (the Act hereinafter), for the assessment year 2008-09, on the following grounds :- 1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in holding that the impugned order passed u/s 206C of the Act is within reasonable tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant. 7. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts of the case in confirming action of ld. AO in initiating penalty u/s 271CA of the Act. 8. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submission, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. The action of the lower authorities is clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 2. The fundamental question that I must deal with is whether the impugned order was passed within reasonable time. 3. To adjudicate on this aspect of the matter, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record and duly considered factual matrix of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. 6. I find that it is not in dispute that the law does not prescribe any limitation period for passing order under section 206C(6), (6A) and (7), when no limitation period is prescribed, order must be passed within reasonable time. As to what would constitute reasonable time, I find guidance from the order of a co-ordinate bench, in the case of ITO vs. Vishal Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.448/Ahd/2007, order dated 9th April, 2010) which has observed as follows :- 4. On consideration of the above facts and considering the findings of the ld. CIT(A) above, we are of the view that the issue is now squarely covered in favour of the assessee an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been prescribed by the statute and this limit is more than four years. However, since there is no specific time limit set out for passing orders under section 206, that aspect of the matter is not material for me. 9. Such a time limit is not to be considered with respect to date of knowledge but with respect to the period to which the lapse pertains. If it were so, the limitation period as for example prescribed under section 147/148 would become meaningless on the concept of knowledge is imported into the scheme of the Act. Viewed thus, and in the light of Hon ble Delhi High Court s decision in the case of NHK Japan Broadcasting Corpn. [(2008) 305 ITR 137 (Del)], I hold the impugned order as time barred. 10. As I have held the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
