Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1068 - AT - Income TaxValidity of order passed u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) - period of limitation - TDS u/s 195 - assessee had made a remittances to certain foreign parties without deduction of any tax at source - disallowance under Sec. 40(a)(ia) - HELD THAT:- We are persuaded to subscribe to the claim of A.R that the order under Sec. 201(1) & 201(1A) r.w.s 195 for A.Y 2007-08 in the case of the assessee before us could have been passed latest by 31.03.2011. Accordingly, as the order under Sec. 201(1) & 201(1A) r.w.s 195 had been passed by the ITO (IT)-TDS2, Mumbai on 31.10.2013, therefore, the same being beyond the prescribed time period envisaged in the proviso to Sec. 201(3) is thus barred by limitation. On the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 201(1) & 201(1A) r.w.s195, dated 31.10.2013having been passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation cannot be sustained and is liable to be vacated. Order passed the ITO(IT) Mumbai under Sec. 201(1) & 201(1A) - a perusal of the letters/notices that the ITO(IT)-TDS, Range-2, Mumbai had only called upon the assessee to furnish certain documentary evidence along with its explanation as to why tax on the payments therein stated was not deducted at source. Neither of the aforesaid letters dated 28.09.2007, 15.02.2008 and 05.09.2013 can be construed as a ‘Show cause’ notice under Sec. 201(1). In fact, as is discernible from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 201(1) & 201(1A) r.w.s 195, dated 31.10.2013, the ‘Show cause’ notice was issued by the ITO(IT)-TDS, Range-2, Mumbai to the assessee for the first time on 18.10.2013,wherein it was called upon to explain as to why it may not be deemed to be an “assessee in default” and therein be directed to pay the defaulted tax along with interest as per the provisions of Sec.201(1) & 201(1A). A perusal order of the ITO(IT)-TDS, Range-2, Mumbai reveals that till 05.09.2013 neither any order under Sec. 201(1) & 201(1A) had been passed nor any proceedings were pending with him under Chapter XVII of the I.T. Act in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2007-08. Proceedings under Sec. 201(1) were initiated by the ITO(IT)-TDS, Range-2, Mumbai for the first time on 18.10.2013, therefore, the contention advanced by the ld. A.R that the said order having been passed beyond a time period of one year from the end of the financial year in which the said proceedings had been initiated, was thus not sustainable. Department has not taken any action against the payee viz. Entec U.K. Ltd., and also the time for taking any such action had expired - As in the case before us the revenue had not taken any action against the payee viz. Entec U.K Limited for nondeduction of tax at source, and also the time limit for taking such action against them under Sec. 148 had expired, therefore, the order against the payer assessee under Sec. 201(1) & 201(1A) r.w.s. 195, dated 31.10.2013 would be invalid. Accordingly, the order passed the ITO(IT)-TDS, Range-2, Mumbai under Sec. 201(1) & 201(1A) r.w.s. 195, dated 31.10.2013 is also struck down on the said count. - Decided in favour of assessee
|