Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 681 - AT - Income TaxValidity of order passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A) - As argued order u/s 201(1), 201(1A), passed beyond the period of limitation - HELD THAT:- An identical issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Tata Teleservices Vs. Union of India[2016 (2) TMI 414 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that prior to section 201 was amended by Finance Act No.2 of 2009, no time limit was provided for passing an order u/s 201(1). But w.e.f. 01.04.2010, a time limit has been provided specifying that such order was to be passed within two years from the end of the financial year in which statements of TDS are filed. If no statement is filed, the order could be passed up to four years from the end of the financial year in which the amount is credited or paid. This judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has been followed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal in Delhi and Mumbai. Therefore, we hold that the order u/s 201 (1)/201 (1A) for the first three quarters for Financial Year 2011-12 was passed beyond the limitation period and, therefore, the same is not a valid order in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the same is quashed. TDS u/s 194C OR 194J - Short deduction of TDS - payments/credit to M/s Conax Access Systems (Pvt.) - it is the assessee’s contention that payments to this company were made under normal contractual obligations and that the services being provided by these two companies were general in nature and did not require any transfer of skill nor did make available any skill to the assessee - HELD THAT:- AR has referred to invoices and agreements entered into with both the parties to buttress his arguments that the services rendered were not in the nature of technical services requiring any sharing/transferring of technical skill or knowledge. These evidences and explanations were submitted before the Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT (A). However, the Ld. CIT (A), notwithstanding the fact that in Financial year 2010-11 he had held that the payments were not in the nature of services falling under section 194J, not only ignored his appellate order in Financial Year 2010-11 but also chose to brush aside the explanations and evidences supplied by the assessee without examining the same in detail. We are informed that the Department’s appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT (A) in Financial Year 2010-11 is pending before the Tribunal. In such circumstances, in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it fit to restore the issue of short deduction of tax at source and interest thereon in the fourth quarter of Financial Year 2011-12 to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) with a direction to pass a speaking order.
|