9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember And Sh. Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh. S. K. Gupta, CA For the Respondent : Sh. Shankar Lal Verma, Sr DR ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-38, Delhi dated 31.01.2020 pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under :- 1. The impugned order under appeal is invalid and without jurisdiction as the same is passed beyond the period of limitation available to the department u/s 201(3)(i) of the Act then in force till 01.10.2014 therefore such order is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. Without prejudice to above, the impugned order under appeal has erred both on facts and in l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been framed on 30.03.2018 it is barred by limitation. 6. Per contra the DR strongly supported the order of the AO. 7. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that the order was framed on 30.03.2018 and the impugned financial year 2010-11. It is true that amendments has been brought in the statue w.e.f. 01.10.2014 but in our considered opinion the said amendment is prospective as was held by the coordinate Bench in the case of Connaught Plaza Restaurants P. Ltd. in ITA No.993 and 1984/Del/2020 order dated 31.12.2021 is relevant findings of the coordinate Bench read as under :- 9. After deliberating at length on the issue in question, we find substance in the claim of the Id. AR that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subscribe to the aforesaid claim of the revenue. As observed by us hereinabove, in the case of the assessee before us the order under sub-section (1) to Section 201 i.e deeming the assessee as an assessee-in-default for failure to deduct the whole or any part of the tax from a person resident in India could have been passed latest by 31.03.2014. On i.e., the date on which sub-section (3) to Section 201 of the Act was amended vide the Finance Act, 2014, the limitation to pass an order under sub-section (1) to Section 201 in the case of the assessee had already lapsed. As stated by the Id. AR, and rightly so, as per the settled position of law, an amendment enlarging the limitation cannot revive the limitation which had already expired prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed notices dated 09.10.2014 u/ss. 201(1)/201(1A) for Financial Years 2007-08 and 2008- 09. It was the claim of the assessee that as it was regularly filing its statements u/s 200 of the Act, therefore, the period of limitation for passing an order under sub-section (1) to Section 201 i.e a period of 2 years from the end of the financial year in which the statement was filed, as prescribed in sub-section (3) to Section 201, had already lapsed, therefore no order treating it as an assessee-in default could validly be passed. However, the AO rejected the aforesaid claim of the assessee, and observed, that as the amendment to sub-section (3) of Section 201 of the Act that was made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2014, w.e.f. 01.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 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. 16. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these petitions succeed. The impugned notices /summonses are held to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
