9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the ld AO] under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 29.01.2016 for the Assessment Years 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively. Since the identical issue involved in these appeals, they are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The only common issue involved in these appeals is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in not treating the order passed by the ld AO u/s 201(1A) of the Act as time barred in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee is a company regularly assessed to income tax and has been duly complying with the provisions of Chapter XVII B of the Act with regard to deduction and remit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this scenario, for the years falling within the period prior to 31.3.2010, the courts have held that the order should be passed within a reasonable period of time. On the contrary, the revenue contended that there is no time limit stipulated in the statute upto 31.3.2010 for framing of order u/s 201(1A) of the Act and hence the order passed on 21.3.2011 for the Asst Years 2003-04 and 2004-05 is valid in law and cannot be treated as barred by limitation. The revenue placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Bhura Exports Ltd vs ITO reported in 13 taxmann.com 162 (Cal) dated 30.8.2011 wherein it was held that where no period of limitation is prescribed under a statute for taking action, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. We find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd supra had held that eventhough the statute does not provide for any time limit for taking action under section 201 of the Act, the same should be taken within a reasonable period of time. What is reasonable period of time is to be imported from the other provisions of the Act such as section 147 or section 153 etc. Based on this, the ld AR argued that accordingly reasonable period could be assumed at 4 years from the end of the relevant financial year and hence the proceedings initiated on 24.8.2010 was much beyond the reasonable period of 4 years and accordingly the order passed u/s 201(1A) of the Act is to be treated as barred by limitation. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Ltd reported in 293 ITR 226 (SC) had held that if the payee had disclosed the subject mentioned transaction as his receipts and in his return, then the assessee payer should not be treated as assessee in default u/s 201 of the Act. Even in that scenario, the assessee would be eligible 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 Juri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
