9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... old the assessment order passed in the present case on 05.03.2018 relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12, on the same reasoning is beyond limitation period and void ab intio. Following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. - ITA No. 4851/DEL/2019 - - - Dated:- 12-10-2022 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US , JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Sh. Vivek Gupta , CA Revenue by : Sh. Sumit Kumar Verma , Sr. DR ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA , AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-31, New Delhi, dated 19.03.2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds of appeal reads as under:- 1. That on the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave Travel Concession. 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the assessment order both on the validity of jurisdiction and merits of the case. The Ld. CIT(A) held that jurisdiction was valid and he held that amendment in provision of section 201(3) w.e.f 01.10.2014 is also applicable to the present assessee s case. On merits also, he upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. We may gainfully refer the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is as under:- 4.1. All the grounds of appeal raised are pertaining to a demand of short deduction alongwith interest amounting to Rs. 23,16,799/- raised u/s 201(1)/201(1A). At the outset, the Ld. AR has argued that as per provisions of section 201(3), the order should have been passed within the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions in section 201(3) are procedural in nature, the order passed by the AO after this date even for financial year 2010- 11 has to be treated within the time prescribed. Hence I hold that the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR are not applicable and grounds of appeal raised on this account are dismissed. 4.2. On merits, the grounds of appeal raised are pertaining to a demand of short deduction alongwith interest amounting to Rs. 23,16,799/- raised u/s 201(1)/201(1A). In his written submissions, the Ld. AR after referring to the provisions of section 10(5) and Rule 2B, has vehemently submitted that the employees of the bank have actually travelled to the designated place in India such as Delhi-Madurai-Chennai-Europe-Delhi whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee s own case vide order dated 03.08.2022 passed in ITA No.2615 2616/Del/2019 for Assessment Year 2011-12. In the said order, the ITAT had held that in similar circumstances in the similar period, the assessment order passed was held to be invalid as it was passed beyond the limitation period for two years. . The ITAT has concluded as under:- 8. Appreciating the mater on record it can be observed that there is no dispute to the fact that for assessment year 2010- 11 in ITA No. 2616/Del/2019 summons was issued on 20.01.2018 and notice u/s 201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Act were issued on 29.01.2018 while in case of ITA No. 2615/Del/2019 also the summons were issued on 20.01. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that wherever legislature wanted to give retrospective effect so specifically provided while amending section 201(3) (ii) of the Act as was amended by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1/4/2010, it is to be held that section 201(3), as amended by Finance Act No.2 of 2014 shall not be applicable retrospectively and therefore, no order under section 201(i) of the Act can be passed for which limitation had already expired prior to amended section 201(3) as amended by Finance Act No.2 of 2014. Under the circumstances, the impugned notices / summonses cannot be sustained and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside and writ of prohibition, as prayed for, deserves to be granted. 9. Co-ordinate Bench at Delhi in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
