9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d beyond 6 years from the date of assessment is under challenge. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench rendered in the case of State Bank of India vs. ITO [2013 (4) TMI 858 - ITAT LUCKNOW] wherein considered the conflicting view and applied the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products [1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] we hereby quash the order declaring assessee in default on the ground that action taken by AO suffers from delay and latches and the Revenue has not explained the cause of such delay. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 394/JP/2016 - - - Dated:- 27-10-2016 - SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Advocate) Revenue by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CIT (A)-III, Jaipur further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in raising demand of interest in relation to the alleged non Collection of Tax at source (TCS) u/s 206C(7) of the Act of ₹ 16,92,315/-, which is completely contrary to the provisions of law and facts hence, kindly be quashed and deleted in full. 5. The appellant prays your honour indulgence to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing. 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he does not wish to press ground no. 1. Therefore, ground no. 1 is dismissed as not pressed. 3. Ground no. 2 of the appeal is against holding that the impugned order is not barred by limitation. 4. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvices vs. UOI Anr. (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Del.). 6.1. On the contrary, the ld. D/R supported the order of the ld. CIT (A) and submitted that there is no limitation prescribed under the Act. 6.2. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed facts arise are that the impugned order declaring the assessee as assessee in default was passed on 31.03.2015 in respect of the tax not collected pertaining to financial year 2007-08. The contention of the asessee is that the Act does not give unfettered power to the AO for taking action under section 206C of the Act. The AO has to initiate action within a reasonable time. Merely because no limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of CIT vs. Calcutta Knitwears (2014) 362 ITR 673 of the Hon ble Supreme court and also the judgment rendered in the case of CIT vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation, (2008) 305 ITR 137 (Delhi) held that the aforementioned decisions settled the position whether to declare an assessee to be an assessee in default under section 201 of the Act could be initiated for a period earlier than four years prior to March 31, 2011. Reliance is also placed by the assessee on the judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Tata Teleservices vs. UOI Anr. (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Del.). We find that ld. CIT (A) also has decided the issue in para 4.3 of his order by observing as under :- 4.3. I have carefully considered the submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
