9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be levied with interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the payee thereon. Hence when the assessee payer himself delays the remittance of TDS which has been deducted by it, there is no reason why the interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act should not be charged on it. Looking into the facts of the case from this angle and by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bhura Exports Ltd [2011 (8) TMI 449 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] which is binding on us, we hold that when there is no time limit stipulated in the statute for passing an order u/s 201(1A) of the Act upto 31.3.2010. for all the assessment years falling prior to 31.3.2010, the order could be passed at any time b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the assessee during the financial years ended 31.3.2003 and 31.3.2004, the assessee having deducted the tax at source had remitted the same to the account of the Central Government with some delay. The ld AO sought to levy interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act for the said delay. In this regard, the ld AO issued notice u/s 201/201(1A) of the Act on 24.8.2010 for the Asst Years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The assessee gave the explanation and objection to levy of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act vide its letter dated 1.2.2011 for both the asst years under appeal. The ld AO ultimately passed order u/s 201(1A) of the Act on 21.3.2011 raising a demand of ₹ 27,276/- and ₹ 39,624/- towards interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act for the Asst Years 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elying on this decision, the ld CITA upheld the action of the ld AO. Aggreived, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. The ld AR argued that the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court supra had been duly considered and distinguished by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of DIT (International Taxation) vs Mahindra Mahindra Ltd reported in 48 taxmann.com 150 (Bom) dated 3.7.2014 wherein they had affirmed the special bench decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd reported in 122 ITD 216 (Mum.) (SB) and the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation reported in 305 ITR 137 (Del). Accordingly he argued that the issue is to be decided in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d only with effect from 1.4.2010. We are not inclined to agree with the alternative argument advanced by the ld AR that the amendment brought with effect from 1.4.2010 need to be construed as retrospective in operation in as much as there is a specific provision in the statute for substantive levy of tax and interest by way of an independent order thereon which cannot be construed as retrospective in operation. It is well settled that any substantive law could only have to be construed as prospective in nature. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Vatika Township P Ltd reported in 367 ITR 466 (SC). Now the short point of dispute that arises for our consideration is when there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
