9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The assessee submits that the said amendment is applicable to the year under appeal. HELD THAT:- Having heard rival contentions, we are of the view that the order passed by Ld CIT(A) quashing the impugned order as barred by limitation does not call for any interference, as the Ld CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by Hon ble jurisdictional Karnataka High Court in M/S BHARAT HOTELS LTD. [ 2015 (12) TMI 1469 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] wherein held period of limitation would be four years from the end of the financial year in question. Accordingly, we uphold the order passed by Ld CIT(A). - Decided against revenue. - ITA No.1687/Bang/2019, CO No.58/Bang/2019 - - - Dated:- 6-3-2020 - Shri B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member And Smt. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the information so received, the TDS officer came to know that the assessee has failed to deduct tax at source from certain expenditure. Hence the TDS Officer initiated proceedings u/s 201(1) of the Act on 5/7/2016 asking the assessee to show cause as to why it should not be held to be as an assessee in default u/s 201(1). Subsequently the TDS officer raised a demand of ₹ 28.73 lakhs u/s 201(1) and interest of ₹ 26.14 lakhs u/s 201(1A) of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before ld CIT(A) challenging the order so passed by TDS officer. Before ld CIT(A), the assessee contended that the impugned order passed by TDS Officer is barred by limitation, as the proceedings have been initiated after expiry of four years form the end of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A):- Admittedly during the hearing on 22/04/2010, the AR submitted an alternative 1egal submission to Ground No. 2 on time barring assessment. The relevant portion of the submission is as under: 2.10 Even assuming without admitting that amendment to section 201(3) vide Finance Act (No. 2) of 2009 is not applicable to the present case, judicial precedents have held 4 years from the end of the financial year in which order is passed to be a reasonable time limit, some of them are as under: 2.11 The Delhi High Court in CIT v JVHK Japan Broadcasting Corpn (2008) 305 [TR 237 (DELHI) noted and held that- Even though the period of three years would be a reasonable period as prescribed by Section 153 of the Act for completion o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able period taking into consideration the various provisions of the Income Tax Act has been held to be four years in a number of cases. We see no reason to extend this period any further. 2.13 The jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka had an occasion to address an identical issue on the time limit for initiating proceedings under section 201. The Honourable Karnataka High Court in CIT v Bharat Hotels Ltd (2016) 384 ITR 77 (Kar) after placing reliance on Delhi High Court decision in CIT v NHK Japan Broadcasting Corpn held as under: .we find that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the order passed under Sec.201 (1) and (1A) of the Act on 28.1.2008 for the assessment year 2002-03, would be barred by limitation as the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2) of 2009 inserted subsections (3) and (4) with effect from 1-4-2010. It provided that an order under section 201(l) for failure to deduct the whole or any part of the tax as required under the Act, if the deductee is a resident payer, shall be passed within two years from the end of the financial year in which statement of tax deducted at source is filed by the deductor. The assessee submits that the said amendment is applicable to the year under appeal. Accordingly, it is argued that the time limit available for passing an order under section 201 expires on 31/03/2013 (being two years from the end of the financial year in which statement of tax deducted at source was filed - which is financial year 2010-11 in the present case. The said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant that the above grounds are squarely covered in favour of the appellant in the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Tata Teleservices v. Union of India 1 (S.C.A No 1623 of 2015, S CA No 2115 of 2015 and S CA No.4771 of 2015) (supra) the jurisdictional Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v Bharat Hotels Ltd (2016) 384 ITR 77 (Kar) (supra) on which reliance has been placed by the appellant and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Oracle India (P.) Ltd v. the DCIT [2015] 63 taxmann.com 24 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Noida Power Company Ltd v. CIT (TDS) (Writ Tax No.150 of 2016]. Respectfully following the above decisions, the appeal on the above grounds are allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
