9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the reasonable period within which any penal action can be initiated against the assessee and failure to initiate steps within that period would disable the department to proceed against the assessee. This decision has been relied upon by the CIT(A) to grant relief to the assessee. Since the decision relied upon by the CIT(A) is of jurisdictional High Court, this Tribunal is bound to follow - Decided against revenue. - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member For the Revenue : Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey. For the Assessee : Shri Ronak G. Doshi. ORDER PER P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M.: These are the revenue appeals directed against the common order of CIT(A)-10, Hyderabad f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... struments Ltd., [2015], 371 ITR 314 (AP) to hold that the show cause notices issued by the department for initiating proceedings u/s 201(1) are barred by limitation. 4. Against the order of CIT(A) for the all the years under consideration, the revenue is in appeal before us by raising the following grounds of appeal, which are common in all the appeals under consideration: 1. The Order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the proceedings u/s 201(1)/201(1A) are barred by limitation of time. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that no time limit has been prescribed by the Income-tax Act. 1961 for completion of proceedings u/s 201(1)/201(1A) in case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laced reliance upon the decisions mentioned in the grounds of appeal, whereas, the ld. counsel for the assessee supported the orders of CIT(A) and has also filed paper book consisting of various case law, wherein, it has been held that initiation of proceedings u/s 201(1) of the Act after a period of 4 years is barred by limitation. 6. Having regard to the rival contentions and material on record, we find that in the case before us, AYs are 2006-07 to 2010-11, whereas, the show cause notices were issued on 25/11/2016 i.e. clearly after the lapse of 4 years from the end of the relevant FYs, in which, payments were made. The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of UB Electronic Instruments Ltd. (supra) has considered that there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
