9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 244X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our of assessee. - ITA No. 5612/Mum/2018, ITA No. 5613/Mum/2018, ITA No. 5614/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 18-9-2019 - Shri C.N. Prasad (Judicial Member) And Shri N.K. Pradhan (Accountant Member) For the Assessee : Mr. Deepak Chopra, AR For the Revenue : Mr. Sushil Kumar Poddar, DR ORDER PER BENCH The captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-60 [hereinafter CIT(A) ] and arise out of order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the Act ). As common issues are involved, we are proceeding to dispose them off through a consolidated order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... validity of the order as being barred by limitation and applicability of the withholding tax provisions u/s 194J to IUC payments. The said appeal filed by the assessee was disposed off by the CIT(A) vide an order dated 27.04.2012 rejecting its plea on the order passed u/s 201(1) being barred by limitation and remanding the matter to the file of the AO for verifying with the help of a technical expert as to whether human intervention is involved in the provision of inter-connect facility in the light of the decision in CIT v. Bharati Cellular Ltd . 193 Taxman 97 (SC). Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal on 04.07.2012 primarily challenging the validity of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and would require to be adjudicated accordingly. 5. Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submits that some more time may be given to him to verify the details from the concerned AO. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submits that the above issue has been decided by the order dated 12.03.2018 by ITAT F Bench, Mumbai in favour of the assessee for the impugned assessment year and the same may be followed. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The above issue arose before the ITAT F Bench, Mumbai in assessee s own case (ITA No. 4511, 4512, 4513, 4514 4515/Mum/2012 for AYs 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for initiation proceedings u/s 201(1) or passing an order under section 201(1) of the Act. Accordingly it was contended by the Ld A.R that the time limit prescribed by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (supra) for initiation of proceedings and the time limit prescribed in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd (supra) by the Special bench approved by Hon ble Bombay High Court for completion of proceedings would apply to the years under consideration. 25. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd (supra) has held that the time limit of four years prescribed for initiating the proceedings u/s 201(1) of the Act by its decision rendered in the case of NHK Japa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts decision rendered in the case of NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (supra) does not require reconsideration, in view of the amendment brought in sec. 201 by insertion of sub-section 3. Accordingly it was held that the ITO could not initiate proceedings u/s 201(1) for periods earlier than four years prior to 31st March 2011. In the instant cases, the time limit of four years from the end of financial year (or three years from the end of assessment year) has expired by 31.3.2004 to 31.3.2008 respectively for assessment years 2000-01 to 2004-05. Hence, the show cause notice issued for the first time on 02-12-2010 for these years is clearly beyond the period of limitation fixed by Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of NHK ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ujarat, in the case of Tata Teleservices (supra) has considered the Memorandum of Finance Bill No.2 of 2009 explaining the provisions of sec. 201(3). The following explanation was considered by Hon ble Gujarat High Court:- .. To provide sufficient time for pending cases, it is proposed to provide that such proceedings for a financial year beginning from 1st April, 2007 and earlier years can be completed by the 31st March, 2011. 30. Accordingly, the Hon ble Gujarat High Court has held that, in respect of F.Y 2007-08 and earlier years only proceedings that were pending could be completed by 31.3.2011 and as such no fresh proceedings could be commenced for the said period. (Paragraph 12.07 of the order). In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
