TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 664X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in a reasonable period and whether delay is unjust, arbitrary, whimsical or it is for valid reasons. If Court finds that delay in exercise of power is for valid and bonafide reasons,alleged delayed exercise of power cannot be held invalid. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to agree with the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that proceedings initiated by respondents-Revenue Authorities under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) is bad being barred by period of limitation. - Misc. Bench No. 1088 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 10-7-2017 - Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal And Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Mishra-II, JJ. For the Petitioner : Ashish Chaturvedi For the Respondent : Alok Mathur ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner-M/s Mass Awash Private Limited (herein after referred to as Assessee ) assailing following orders/notices : - A. Notice dated 12.08.2015 issued by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle Lucknow (herein after referred to D.C.I.T. ) under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein-after referred to as Act, 1961 ) for non deduction of T.D.S. on paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Road, Lucknow, at the time of execution of deed. 3. ₹ 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs) paid through Cheque No. 645031 Dt. 13.06.03 drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. before execution of deed, 4. ₹ 28,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lacs) through Cheque No. 013052 dt. 02.11.04, drawn on Citi Bank, Lucknow, before execution of deed, 5. ₹ 22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs) paid through Cheque No. 120514 dt. 21.11.04 drawn on Bank of India, Lucknow before execution of deed, 6. ₹ 60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lacs) paid through Pay Order No. 010975 dt. 14.06.2005 drawn on Bank of India, N.K.Road, Lucknow, at the time of execution of deed, and 7. ₹ 60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Lacs) paid through Pay Order No. 010974 dt. 14.06.2005 drawn on Bank of India, N.K.Road, Lucknow, at the time of execution of deed. 5. Addresses of Vendors mentioned in sale deed are as under: 1. Smt. Shanti Tripathi wife of late Dr. Surendra Prasad Tripathi, resident of 9/11, Rana Pratap Marg, Sarvodaya Housing Colony, Lucknow. 2. Smt. Niti Pandey wife of Sri Vijay Pandey resident of 2-B, Moti Lal Atal Road, Jaipur. 3. Smt. Nishi Pandey wife of Sri Neeraj Pandey, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 195 of Act, 1961, Principal Officer of Assessee was responsible for deducting T.D.S. at 10%, which it has failed. Asseesee was required to show-cause why it should not be treated as an Assessee, deemed in default and proceedings for default by non-deduction of T.D.S. may not be initiated against it for F.Ys. 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. 9. Since Smt. Nidhi Raman, an N.R.I., was liable to pay capital gain tax as land sold was an urban land, she was supposed to file income tax return for A. Y. 2006-07. However it failed and neither paid tax nor filed return. Notice under Section 148 of Act, 1961 was issued to Smt. Nidhi Raman on 26.07.2008. On 24.12.2009, Assistant Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation), Kanpur (herein after referred to as A.D.I.T. ) passed assessment order dated 26.12.2009 for A.Y. 2006-07 under Section 144 read with Section 147 of Act, 1961 against Smt. Nidhi Raman. She preferred Appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kanpur (herein-after referred to as C.I.T. (A), Kanpur ). Appellate authority by order dated 16.02.2012 annulled assessment order dated 24.12.2009 on the ground that order under Section 163 treating Smt. Shant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tailed above. 14. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of respondents that Assessee has a statutory alternative remedy of appeal before C.I.T.(A), Lucknow, under Section 246 of Act, 1961 and therefore it should be relegated to avail aforesaid statutory alternative remedy. In support thereof, Sri Alok Mathur, learned counsel appearing for respondent, placed reliance on Commissioner Income Tax and others Versus Chabil Dass Agarwal (2014) 1 SCC 717, Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Assn. of India (2011) 14 SCC 337, Munshi Ram Versus Municipal Committee, Chheharta (1979) 3 SCC 83, Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat Versus Vijaybhai N. Chandani (2013) 357 ITR 713 (SC), Indo Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. Versus ITO, (2002) 10 SCC 444 and Ram and Shyam Co. Versus State of Haryana, (985) 3 SCC 267. He further urged that neither any period of limitation has been prescribed under statute for passing order under Section 195 nor it can be said that issue of limitation can be ascertained from a bare perusal of facts so as to entertain writ petition at this stage, without relegating parties to avail statutory alternative remedy. It is contended that issue of limitation is a mixed q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt Smt. Nidhi Raman, who was represented through her Attorney, Smt Nishi Pandey,(sister). Assessee has not placed on record, power of attorney to show what necessitated Smt. Nidhi Raman to execute power of attorney in favour of her sister, for execution of sale-deed while another sister could have come to Lucknow from Jaipur for execution of said document. We find no reason not to draw an inference that being a prudent buyer petitioner must have seen contents of said power of Atorney and was well aware of the reason of execution of same. 19. At which point of time A. A. or Revenue came to know of this fact is an important aspect and also a source or manner in which they could have got information on this aspect. There is no pleading or material in writ petition except that a notice under Section 148 was issued to Smt. Nidhi Raman for A.Y. 2006-2007 on 26.07.2008. However copy of said notice is also not on record. 20. In absence of these relevant facts, contention that Assessee was unaware of one seller being NRI or that Revenue took time barred action, in our view is neither sustainable nor ex-facie can be held in favour of Assessee. 21. Be that as it may, we proceed to ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... read as under: (1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), if any such person, principal officer or company as is referred to in that sub-section does not deduct the whole or any part of the tax or after deducting fails to pay the tax as required by or under this Act, he or it shall be liable to pay simple interest at one per cent for every month or part of a month on the amount of such tax from the date on which such tax was deductible to the date on which such tax is actually paid, and such interest shall be paid before furnishing the statement in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 200. (emphasis added) 23. No period of limitation, we find is prescribed under Section 201 for exercise of power thereunder. Learned counsel for Assessee also could not dispute that there is no other provision, which expressly provides limitation for exercise of power under Section 201. He, however, relied on various judicial precedents holding that a power provided in statute must be exercised within a reasonable time and if no period of time is prescribed for exercise of such power, then it can only be exercised within a reasonable time and no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeded to examine under Section 211 of Bombay Land Revenue Code, which confers power of revision upon the State Government and Revenue Officer, not inferior in rank to an Assistant Collector or Deputy Collector to call for record for satisfying itself as to legality or propriety of any decision or order passed and as to the regularity of proceedings of such officer. Court formulated a question whether Commissioner can revise an order passed under Section 65 by exercising power under Section 211 at any time and, said it seems to us plain that this power must be exercised in reasonable time and the length of reasonable time must be determined by the facts of each case and nature of the order, which is being revised. Taking clue from Section 65, which provided for deemed grant of permission , if no decision is taken within three months, Court held that it shows that Legislature thinks that matter is so urgent that permission shall be deemed to have been granted. From that angle, when Sections 211 and 65 read together, Commissioner also must exercise his revisional power within few months of order of Collector. Court further explains reason for taking view that after grant of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment was made on 20.03.2001 and notice was issued on 04.09.2006 without assigning any reason and justifying exercise of revisional jurisdiction, therefore, it is bad in law. Challenging judgment in Supreme Court, State argued that no limitation was prescribed for exercising revisional power under Section 21(1) of Punjab Act, 1948 and that even otherwise, High Court did not consider various other relevant aspects. Court held that Milk Union was filing quarterly returns showing turnover of sales and purchase of goods. Deposit of tax was also mentioned in the returns. When A.A. passed assessment order dated 28.03.2001, it has taken into consideration books of account and other relevant documents. The limitation for assessment provided in Section 11 (3) is three years, Under Section 11 (6), A.A. can make best assessment, if finds something escaped and for that purpose limitation prescribed is five years. Section 11 (1) also empowers Commissioner to extend three years limitation for passing order of assessment to the maximum of five years. It also provided, where an assessment order is to be reviewed, same should be done within a period of one year. It is in this backdrop, Court said t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a short judgment and Court has followed its earlier decision in CIT Verus NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (2008) 305 ITR 137= (2008) 172 TAXMAN 230 (Delhi) to hold that since no specific period has been prescribed under Section 201 and 201(1A), reasonable time limit has to be adopted for initiating action thereunder and it would be four years from the end of financial year, which had elapsed. 28. In CIT VersusNHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation(Supra), Assessee was a Government company of foreign country, carrying on business in India. In respect of its employees in India, it paid salary in Indian rupees, and something, called global salary to the employees of home country. For the salary paid to employee in India, Assessee deducted TDS, but in respect of global salary , TDS was not deducted. On 19.11.1998 a survey was conducted when this fact came to the notice of Revenue. Assessee did not dispute liability of deduction of TDS, in respect of global salary and paid tax due thereon along with interest. In December, 1999, A. A. required Assessee to show cause, why it should not be treated as an Assessee in default . After Assessee filed reply, A. A. passed order, treating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act or through making an assessment of the income of the deductee. (Emphasis added) 29. We are informed that Revenue took this matter in Appeal before Supreme Court i.e. S.L.P. No. 24913-24919/2012 (CIT, New Delhi Versus NHK Japan Corporation) decided on 11.08.2014 and it passed following order: It is thus clear that the same Bench of the Supreme Court which issued direction on 16th March, 2009 passed the aforesaid order making it emphatically clear that even the issue of limitation had become academic as the assessee could not be declared as assessee in default under Section 192 read with Section 201 of the Act. The fallout of the aforesaid order dated 20th January, 2010 is that the Supreme Court hasheld that the assessee for the assessment years in question, cannot be treated as assessee in default. The consequence would be to quash the proceeding initiated by the AO treating the assessee to be in default under Section 201 (1) and 201 (1A) of the Act. 7. We, thus agree with the Tribunal that the issue had become academic in nature and there was no reason left to decide this issue. This happened because of the subsequent order of the Supreme Court itself. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the assessment. Similarly, the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by a Commissioner against an order of assessment under sub-section (2) of section 263 not beyond the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. The examples can be multiplied. If for important and substantial proceedings like those under section 148 of the Act and the suo motu proceedings under section 263 of the Act limitation prescribed is four years and two years, respectively, an ordinary and inconsequential step relating to deduction of tax at source cannot be permitted to be initiated beyond the period so stipulated. By and large, four years is treated as the period within which any penal action can be initiated against an assessee. Failure to initiate steps within that period would disable the Department to proceed against the assessee. The reason is not difficult to be discerned. With each passing year, the assessee is required to adjust his or her own affairs in such a way that the activity undertaken by it goes on smoothly. In case, liability for the preceding one or two years is fastened, there can be scope for making adjustme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 of Act, 1961. Court also held that time period applicable in respect of Section 149, for taking action under Section 147, for giving notice under Section 148, would have no application qua Section 201 since it is not a case of income escaping assessment but a case of inaction of a deductor to deduct tax on interest while making payment of interest in violation of Section 194(A) of Act, 1961. Court therefore proceeded to hold that C.I.T.(A) erred in law in applying time limit, with reference to Section 149 for initiation of action under Section 201. Relevant observations contained in para 11 of the judgment reads as under:- 11. Even if the person to whom interest was paid without deduction of tax had subsequently paid tax on that income, the deductor cannot escape the liability to pay interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee-Assessee nor can the deductor avoid the liability of penalty under Section 271C of the Act and the said provision is mandatory in nature. It is a different kind of a situation from the one of income escaping assessment and of the above reason, the legislature made a separate provision of bar of limitati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (supra). 36. In Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Versus Mahindra and Mahindra Limited (2014) 365 ITR 560 (Bom), Bombay High Court has taken a view of applying limitation for initiation of proceedings under Section 201 of Act, 1961 and said that it should be one year from the end of financial year in which proceedings are initiated. Assessee therein came out with two Euro issues of the size of US $ 74.75 million and US $ 100 million in November, 1993 and July, 1996. Income Tax authorities required Assessee to furnish details in connection with payments made to various non-resident persons who were connected with bringing out the said Euro issues. A.A. treated certain service being technical services covered under Section 9 (1) (vii), required Assessee to show cause why it should not be treated Assessee in default for non deduction of TDS on the payments made for such services and action must be initiated under Section 201 (1) and 201(1A). Assessee replied that the services rendered by Lead Managers were in nature of finance and banking services and not technical and also gave other reasons. A. A. passed order, which was challenged by Assessee but failed before C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same as prescribed under section 149, i.e. four years or six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, as the case may be, depending upon the amount of income in respect of which the person responsible is sought to be treated as assessee in default. (x) The maximum time limit for passing the order under section 201(1) or section 201(1A) is the same as prescribed under section 15392) being one year from the end of the financial year in which proceedings under section 201(1) are initiated. (xi) Any order passed under section 201(1) or section 201(1A) cannot be held as barred by limitation if it is not passed within four years from the end of the relevant financial year. (Emphasis added) 38. Bombay High Court considered the matter by formulating two issues: (1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in prescribing the time limit for initiation and completion of proceedings under sub-sections (1) and (1A) of section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the absence of any time limit provided under the said Act? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in prescribing the time limit statutorily provided for initiation and completion of reassessment pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings, character of order etc. Normally there should not be any particular time limit, say two years, five years or ten years, but it depends upon facts and circumstances of the matter. Tribunal also observed that the nature of proceedings under Section 201(1) and type of order thereunder is an order of assessment, and for that purpose, relied on Supreme Court judgment in ITO Versus Delhi Development Authority (2001) 252 ITR 772(SC), whereby Delhi High Court's judgment taking the said view was approved, for the purposes of considering what should be the reasonable time. 43. For Section 201 of Act, 1961, Bombay High Court it was considered that explanation to Section 191 and Section 201(1) shows that persons responsible for deducting or failing to pay tax, deducted at source, is to be deemed an Assessee in default only if the payee of income has also failed to pay such tax directly. Where the payee is not liable to pay tax on the amount of income received by him without deduction of tax at source, then person responsible for deduction also cannot be treated Assessee in default . Liability of the person responsible is dependent upon the deductee failing or otherwise to pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasonable time limit for initiation and completion of action under Section 201(1) would be similar to those available for assessment under Section 147. Thus proceedings under Section 201 can be initiated in the extended period of six years from the end of relevant assessment year, if income by virtue of sum paid without deduction of tax at source by payer chargeable to tax in the hands of the payee is equal to or more than one lakh rupees. If the amount is less than ₹ 1 lakh, then lower period of four years as prescribed under section 149 (1) (a) from the end of the relevant assessment year is available for initiation of proceedings under Section 201(1). From the said logic, completion of proceedings under Section 201(1) i.e. passing of the order under this sub-section, has to be within one year from the end of the financial year in which proceedings under Section 201(1) were initiated. The same time limit for initiation and completion would be applicable for Section 201 (1A). This reasoning and ultimately view taken by Tribunal was upheld by Bombay High Court in Director of Income Tax (Industrial Taxation) Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited (supra). 44. In CIT (TDS) Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue and Assessee both challenged order of CIT(A) in Tribunal. It held that orders under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) were barred by limitation, still decided matter on merits also and held, if Assessee has paid advance tax after considering licence fee then no interest under Section 201(1A) will be chargeable, as Board's Circular has mentioned that interest under Section 201(1A) is to be charged till the date of payment of tax by deductee-Assessee. Hence, issue of computation of interest under Section 201 and 201(1A) for A.Y. 2002-03 will have to be worked again by Assessing Officer in respect of licence fee. With regard to upfront fee, Tribunal held that Assessee was liable for deduction of TDS, hence, Assessing Officer rightly demanded interest under Section 201 and 201(1A). Before Karnataka High Court two questions of law were framed: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the order passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act dated 28.1.2008 for the assessment year 2002-03 is barred by limitation? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was liable to pay interest under Section 201(1A) of the Act for not deducting TDS, from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uiry under Section 84-C of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. He held that sale deeds in question were invalid as appellant- Mohaamad Kavi Mohamad Amin was not an agriculturist belonging to State of Gujarat. Appeal, Revision and Writ Petition all were dismissed and matter came to Supreme Court. It observed that Section 84 does not provide any limitation. Relying on State of Gujarat Vs. Patil Raghav Natha (supra) and Ram Chand Vs. Union of India (1994) 1 SCC 44 held that where no time-limit is prescribed for exercise of a power under statute it does not mean that it can be exercised at any time; such power has to be exercised within a reasonable time. 49. In Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham Versus K.Suresh Reddy and others (2003) 7 SCC 667, question arose whether Collector can exercise suo motu power under sub-section (4) of Section 50-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1950 ) at any time or such power is to be exercised within a reasonable time. Several sale deeds were executed and possession of land was also delivered. Applications were filed by parties to sale deed under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012 on 28.05.2012 in Section 201(3) would be retrospective or not? The answer was in negative. In our view, this judgment as such does not help Mr. Seth in this case, since issue raised herein is different. 51. Delhi High Court in Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Limited Vs. Union of India (2016) 67 taxmann.com 124 (Delhi) raises a question of validity of action taken by Revenue under Section 201(1) and (1A) for non-deduction of TDS for a period earlier than four years prior to 31.3.2011. In that case, amendments made by Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010, inserting Subsections 3 and 4 along with proviso to sub-section (3) was considered. Revenue has not taken recourse to Sub-section 3 and 4 inserted by Finance Act, 2009, hence, for the case in hand, we do not find this judgment of any help to Assessee in any manner. 52. Then a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Narendra Kumar and another Versus Collector, Bulandshahar and others 2004 Legal Eagle (ALD) 640, has been relied on, wherein it was held that recovery proceedings initiated after 18 years under U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 is barred by limitation and also by principle of waiver. This decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The law laid down in Patel Raghav Natha has been reiterated by this Court in several cases. We do not intend to burden our judgment with all those cases. We may only state that broad contention of the landowners that when no period of limitation is prescribed, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised at any time cannot but be rejected. If the law prescribes period of limitation, the action must be taken within such period. But where the law does not prescribe limitation, the curt would import the concept of reasonable time . We may, however, hasten to add that what is the length of the reasonable time would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no rule of universal application can be liad down. 31. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the revisional authority was duty-bound to take into account the length of delay, intervening circumstances and subsequent events from 1977 to 1955 and to consider whether the powers should have been exercised or not. Since no such exercise has been undertaken, the order suffers from legal infirmity and must be quashed. (Emphasis added) 57. The last decision relied on behalf of Assessee by Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, contended that limitation, if not prescribed in statute, cannot be read therein, particularly, when it cannot be said that some right has been accrued to Assessee and exercise of power under Section 201 will result in unsettling those rights. He said that non-compliance of obligations under Section 195 has its consequences under Section 201 and is not a case of conferring any right upon Assessee, but enables Revenue to be compensated for a wrong which has been committed by Assessee by non-complying requirement of deduction of TDS under Section 195. Hence, it is not a case where this enabling power, if exercised by Revenue, must be denied on the ground of limitation when in the nature of power, Legislature has not provided for the same. 60. One of the earliest authorities relied by Sri Mathur, on behalf of Revenue, is a judgment of three Judges Bench in Munshi Ram and others Vs. Municipal Committee, Chheharta (supra). Appellants therein were partners of firm, namely, Bharat Industries, Chheharta. A profession tax was imposed by Chheharta Municipal Committee under Section 61 (1) (b) of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 by Notification dated May 15th, 1956. Rate of tax initially was &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r by necessary implication under Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure. Here petitioner has filed writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. In appropriate cases, this Court may relegate petitioner to avail statutory alternative remedy, but there are several exception to the same and this objection has already been rejected by this Court while entertaining writ petition, after discussing the matter in detail. We do not find any reason to repeat the same. 64. In CIT Versus Vijaybhai N. Chandrani AIR 2013 SC 3518, notice under Section 135C was issued and challenged in Gujrat High Court. An objection regarding maintainability of writ petition against notice was raised, but High Court examined matter on merits and allowed writ petition. It quashed notice issued by A.A. Supreme Court said, when notice is issued, Assessee has remedy of addressing his grievance by explaining his stand to A.A. and when alternative remedy is available, Assessee must exhaust the same. Court relied on its earlier judgments in Bellary Steels and Alloys Ltd. Versus CCT (2009) 17 SCC 547. 65. Next authority is Ram and Shyam Company Versus State of Haryana and others (1985) 3SCC 267. This judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of power under Section 201 and 201(1A) of Act, 1961, in the case in hand, can it be said to be an exercise of power with unreasonable delay so as to invalidate such exercise of power. 69. In the present case, payment of consideration of property in dispute was made between June 2003 to June 2005. The address of all co-owners of property were shown as in India i.e. Lucknow, Jaipur and Allahabad, respectively. There was no indication at all that one of the sellers was N.R.I. Sale deed was registered on 14.06.2005. Return of income of A.Y. 2006-07 was filed disclosing factum of purchase of property vide sale deed dated 14.06.2005. Assessment Order was passed on 30.12.2008. In the aforesaid return also, it is not the case of petitioner that there was any indication disclosing to Revenue Authority that one of the sellers was N.R.I. Case of Revenue is that they came to know during the course of processing of return of petitioner for A.Y. 2006-07 that one of co-sellers, Smt. Nidhi Raman, is an N.R.I. and liable to pay capital gain tax as land sold was an urban land, which was also supported by return of income for A.Y. 2006-07. A notice under Section 148 of Act, 1961 was issued to S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 201(1A) of Act, 1961. 71. In the entirety of the discussion, we find it difficult to hold that period consumed by Revenue in prosecuting matter against main payee would have resulted in accrual of a right upon Assessee so as to deprive Revenue from proceeing under Section 201 (1) and 201(1A), though, admittedly, Assessee-petitioner has committed default by not complying Section 195 by non-deduction of TDS on the amount paid to Smt. Nidhi Raman. Defence of petitioner that it was misrepresented by seller by not disclosing by any of them that she was an N.R.I. would equally be available to Revenue also for explaining delay and also their bonafide is fortified that they make all possible efforts to recover entire amount of tax from person liable to pay tax and as a last resort they have sought to exercise power under Section 201 (1) and 201(1A) against Assessee. 72. The view taken by Delhi High Court that period of limitation of four years, as applicable for making Assessment under Section 147, should be made applicable for exercising power under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), we find it difficult to subscribe inasmuch as we do not impose a fixed time and prescribe a period of lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
