TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l years. Therefore no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in cancelling the orders passed by the AO u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) and deleting the demands raised consequentially. In favour of assessee. - ITA Nos.1612, 1613, & 1614/Hyd/2008 - - - Dated:- 3-5-2013 - Chandra Poojari and Asha Vijayaraghavan, JJ. For the Appellant : Smt Amisha S Gupt For the Respondent : Shri P Murali Mohana Rao ORDER:- Per: Asha Vijayaraghavan: These three appeals preferred by the revenue are directed against a common order of CIT(A)-II, Hyderabad, dated 29/08/20008 for assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03 2003-04. As the identical issues are involved in these appeals, they were clubbed and heard together, therefore, a common order is passed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bad in law. 4. During the appellate hearing, in support of the addition ground, the AR of the assessee stated that very recenty the Hon ble Hyderabad ITAT had passed orders in the case of AP State Civil Supplies Corporation stating that orders u/s 201(1) 201(1A) cannot be passed beyond the period of 4 years from the end of the financial year. The AR had also stated that filing of additional ground had become necessary since the decision of the Hon ble Tribunal has come just recently and it was not there at the time of filing of appeals. He, therefore, requested that the additional ground may please be admitted since they are vital for deciding the appeals. The CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee held that the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relevant financial year were time barred and accordingly quashed. However, I had held that the delay in passing the orders was not attributable to the AO but to the appellant and hence the orders were not barred by limitation. Otherwise also, there is no clear cut provision in the IT Act on limitation in passing order u/s 201(1) and 201(1A). Against, my order, the assessee had filed an appeal before the ITAT. Hon ble ITAT A Bench has analyzed the decision by the ITAT Mumbai in the case of SBI and have also gone through the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation [2008] 217 CTR 392. In the aforesaid case the Hon ble Delhi High Court at page 394 has held (headnote) . Initiation of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er consideration and has raised the following grounds of appeal, which are common in the three assessment years: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the learned CIT(A) is not acceptable both on facts and in law. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in cancelling the orders passed u/s 201(1) 201(1A). 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A)-II erred in not following the decision of Thai Airways International Public Co. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [2005] 2 SOT 389 (Del.) 4. The learned CIT(A) should have appreciated that no time limit was prescribed either for initiation or for completion of proceedings u/s 201(1) 201(1A) of the IT Act. There are various case laws which support the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
