Latest - TMI e-Newsletter
New User/ Regiser
2022 (8) TMI 219 - Income Tax
Assessee in Default for non deduction of TDS - Validity of order u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) - period of limitation - TDS u/s 192 - re-imbursement made under Leave Fare Concession (‘LTD’) scheme of the State Bank of India to employees who have carried out circuitous tour, covering foreign destination - benefit of exemption u/s 10(5) - AO denied the benefit of Section 10(5) observing that the bank was bound to deduct tax u/s 192 - Assessee argued that order of assessment passed is beyond jurisdiction of the AO on account of being passed after prescribed period of limitation - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute to the fact that for assessment year 2010-11 summons was issued on 20.01.2018 and notice u/s 201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Act were issued on 29.01.2018 while in case also the summons were issued on 20.01.2018 and notice was issued on 29.01.2018. The assessment orders u/s 201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Act have been passed on 05.03.2018. There is no doubt that Section 201(3) of the Act provides that the assessment orders under sub section 1 of Section 201 against assessee in default for failure to deduct the whole or any part of the tax from a person resident in India can be passed before expiry of two years from the end of financial year in which the payment is made.
Co-ordinate Bench at Delhi in the case of HCL Technologies Ltd. [2020 (7) TMI 643 - ITAT DELHI] has also relied the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court judgment[2016 (2) TMI 414 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. The distinction attempted to be brought by Ld. Sr. DR by submitting that under the un-amended sub section 3 of Section 201 there were two clauses and first clause provided two years limitation was in case where statement of TDS were filed and there was limitation of six years where no such statement is filed and has no foundation because in the present case admittedly the statement was filed by the assessee and the question was only with regard to the issue if TDS was required to be deducted in cases involving payment of LTC reimbursements to employees who had taken circuitous routes involving travel abroad to one or more domestic destinations.
There is no doubt in the mind of Bench that the impugned order of assessment passed was without jurisdiction as the same was passed beyond the limitation period of two years and accordingly the ground no. 1 as raised stands allowed in favour of the assessee declaring assessment order to be void ab initio requiring no further determination of issues.