9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act as four years from the end of the financial year in which the payment was made or credit was given. And later on, it was extended to seven years, by amendment by insertion of a new section by Finance Act, 2014. The order passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act in this case was beyond even the period of seven years. When the Revenue had an opportunity to verify the record on the occasion of the first order dated 06/07/2010, it would be quite unreasonable to accept the order passed four years later, because the order under challenge is passed clearly beyond seven years. In the case of CIT vs. Acer India Pvt. Ltd. [ 2022 (2) TMI 235 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] for the assessment year 2009-10, the Hon ble Karnataka High Court held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C, Dubai, but without discharging its obligation to make TDS under section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ). 3. Though the assessee pleaded that the payment is in the nature of reimbursement, and no TDS is required to be affected on such reimbursement, learned Assessing Officer stated that the assessee failed to produce any evidence to prove the said fact, passed an order under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act fastening the tax liability and interest thereon, by order dated 03/03/2014. 4. Aggrieved by such an action of the learned Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) and argued that the reimbursement does not require any TDS and further that the impugned order was also barred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Bheemarasetty Sunitha (supra), while following the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharathi Airtel vs. UOI, 76 taxmann.com 256 (Del) held that four years is the reasonable period to pass the order under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 8. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. Admittedly, the alleged lapse committed by the assessee was in the financial year 2005-06, which ended by 31/03/2006. The impugned order under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act was passed on 03/03/2014, well beyond seven years thereafter. Further, it could be seen from the record that on 06/07/2010, the learned Assessing Officer passed an order under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
