Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (12) TMI 1469 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2015 (12) TMI 1469 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - [2016] 384 ITR 77 - TDS u/s 194I - assessee in default - Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the order passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) for the assessment year 2002-03 is barred by limitation? - Held that:- In the memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance (II) Bill, 2009, it was clearly stated that ‘to provide sufficient time for pending cases, it is proposed to provide that such proceedings for a financial year beginning .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

subsequent years. As such, it is clear that proviso to sub-section (3) did not legalize the cases where action had already been taken, but was meant for only such cases which were pending at the time of insertion of sub-section (3) to Section 201 of the Act. Thus, for the reasons given above, we find that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the order passed under Sec.201 (1) and (1A) of the Act on 28.1.2008 for the assessment year 2002-03, would be barred by limitation as the period of lim .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s only a mechanism for collection of tax by the payer, even though the liability to pay tax is that of the Recipient. The provision for payment of interest under sub-section (1A) of Section 201 of the Act is only of compensatory nature. It cannot be a means to penalise the payer. The provision for payment of interest would arise from the date when it ought to have been deducted i.e., from the date of payment by the payer to the Recipient. The liability to pay interest would end on the date when .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mount which has already been paid or deposited with it. As such, the liability of the assessee herein would not be for payment of interest after the period of deposit of tax by the Recipient.- Decided in favour of the respondent assessee and against the Revenue. - Income Tax Appeal 393/2009 - Dated:- 2-12-2015 - Vineet Saran And S. Sujatha, JJ. For the Appellant : Sri K V Aravind, Adv For the Respondent : Sri Rupesh Jain for Sri D Prashanth Kumar, Adv JUDGMENT The present appeal relates to the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

evant for the purpose of this appeal would be four months from 1st December, 2001 to 31st March, 2002. The admitted facts are that under an agreement between the respondent-assessee Bharat Hotels Ltd and KKFHPL, a license fee of ₹ 4.11 crores per annum was to be paid as a minimum guarantee payment to KKFHPL. The dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the assessee not having deducted the tax at source (TDS), as was required under Section 194 I of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessee to KKFHPL, nor was any such declaration made in its return. The payment of licence fee made by the assessee to KKFHPL, under the lease agreement for the relevant period, amounted to ₹ 1.37 crores; plus ₹ 24.90 crores, which was further paid by the assessee as upfront fee to the KKFHPL (hereinafter also referred as Recipient) on which the Revenue claims that tax was to be deducted at source, which was not done. Thus, the admitted position is that on the said amount, neither an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to KKFHPL were reflected. At no stage the question of deduction of tax for the payment so made by the assessee to the Recepient KKFHPL was ever raised. It was only when a survey was conducted in the premises of the assessee on 19.9.2007, that proceedings for failure to deduct tax at source (TDS) during the assessment year 2002-03 was raised and consequently, notice was given to the assessee. Then by order dated 28.1.2008 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Ac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion of mistake, the Appellate Commissioner corrected its order and held that the impugned order passed by the Assessing Officer was within limitation. However, a finding was also recorded that the amount paid by the assessee to the Recipient was not towards rent and hence the provisions of Section 194 I of the Act were not attracted. Consequently it was held that, there was no failure to deduct tax and hence the provisions of Section 201 of the Act were not attracted. Challenging the said order .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

held that If the deductee assessee has paid advance tax after considering the licence fee then no interest u/s 201(1A) will be chargeable, as the Board Circular has mentioned that interest u/s 201(1A) is to be charged till the date of payment of tax by the deducteeassessee. Hence, the issue of computation of interest u/s 201(1A) for the asst. year 2002-03 will have to be worked again by the Assessing Officer in respect of licence fee. Since we have held that the assessee was required to deduct .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es, the questions of law to be considered have been reframed, as follows: 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 the date when the payment was made by the assessee to the Recipient, till the date the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he Act for initiating action for failure to deduct TDS. It was only by the Finance Act, 2009 that sub-section (3) was inserted, initially providing for a period of limitation of two years from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed; and four years from the end of the financial year in which the payment is made or credit is given. A proviso was also inserted in the said subsection (3) providing that for financial year commencing on or before 1.4.2007, orders may be passed a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ter so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part of the tax, as required by or under this Act, then, such person, shall, without prejudice to any other consequences which he may incur, be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax: Provided that no penalty shall be charged under Section 221 from such person, unless the Assessing Officer is satisfied that such person, without good and sufficient reasons, has failed to deduct and pay such tax. (1A) Without prejudice to the prov .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y month or part of a month on the amount of such tax from the date on which such tax was deducted 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. Sub-section (3) as it was inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1.4.2010 is also reproduced below: (3) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) deeming a person to be an assessee in default for failure .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

me on or before the 31st day of March, 2011. Then by Finance Act, 2012, the period of 4 years mentioned in clause (ii) of sub-section (3) was amended as 6 years to be given effect from 1.4.2010. It may be noted, by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, sub-section (3) has further undergone an amendment with effect from 1.10.2014, whereby limitation of 7 years period from the end of the financial year has been provided. Such is the provision of law which we have to consider while deciding the first question. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

learned counsel for the Revenue has vehemently argued that when there is no limitation provided under the Act, proceedings can be initiated at any stage and at any time. In the alternative, he submitted that even if it is held that proceedings are to be initiated within a reasonable time, then too, the period of seven years from the end of the financial year, as has been provided for by the Finance Act, 2014, would be the reasonable time. He has submitted that Section 153 of the Act provides fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n 148 was served. According to him, Section 147 of the Act would apply for computing the reasonable period and not Section 153(1) of the Act, and since notice under Section 148 could be served up to six years from the end of the relevant assessment year (in cases where the amount involved is more than ₹ 1 lakh) coupled with Section 153(2) of the Act providing one year time for passing the order of assessment, reassessement or recomputation in which the notice under Section 148 was served, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ating proceedings for the assessment year 2002-03 (which falls before 1.4.2007), the proceedings could be completed on or before 31.3.2011. Per contra, Sri Rupesh Jain, learned counsel for respondent assessee has submitted that when no limitation is provided, limitation would be a reasonable period and not unlimited period. According to him, reasonable period would be as provided under Section 153(1) of the Act, which is two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the present case. He, however, submitted that initially the period of limitation provided under the said sub-section was also the same as provided under Section 153(1) and thus, he contends that the same should be considered as the reasonable period of limitation for initiating proceedings under Section 201 for the assessment year 2002-03. Sri Rupesh Jain, learned counsel for the respondent assessee has further submitted that the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 201 would not be applicabl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n Ltd (2007) 11 SCC 360 has held that it is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend on the nature of the Statute, rights and liabilities there under and other relevant factors . In the case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil Vs Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors (2009) SCC 352, the Apex Court has held: It seems to be fairly settled that if a s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

easonable time is inherent therein As early as in the year 1969, the Apex Court, in the case of State of Gujarat Vs Patel Raghav Natha & Ors AIR 1969 SC 1297, has held that where there is no period of limitation prescribed, the same should be done within a reasonable time, and the length of reasonable time must be determined on the facts of the case. Then, in the year 1989, again the Apex Court in the case of Government of India Vs Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals & Ors (1990) 184 ITR 467, w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pend upon the facts of the case and the provisions of the Act under which action has to be taken. This is necessary, also because if any right has accrued in favour of a person or party by passage of time, same cannot be unsettled by a statutory authority at any time or after an indefinite period, as the same would amount to unsettling a settled position, which can only be done within a reasonable period, and not at any time in the future after an unlimited period. Now what we have to consider i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he said judgment as under: 18. In so far as the Income tax Act is concerned, our attention has been drawn to S.153(1)(a) thereof which prescribes the time limit for completing the assessment, which is two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable. It is well known that the assessment year follows the previous year and, therefore, the time limit would be three years from the end of the financial years. This seems to be a reasonable period as accepted under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n mentioned in the order which is under challenge before us, taken the view that four years would be a reasonable period of time for initiating action, in a case where no limitation is prescribed. The Tribunal has relied on the said judgment and thus held that four years period would be a reasonable period of time for initiating action. Though learned counsel for the appellants / Revenue has vehemently argued that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Uttam Namdeo Mahale Vs Vi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

itation is provided, then the period of limitation would be a reasonable period of time, depending upon the facts of each case. The facts of the case before the Apex Court in the case of Uttam Namedeo Mahale (supra) were different from the facts of the case in hand. The provision for tax deduction at source is only a mechanism for collection of tax, which is to be actually paid by the Recipient of the money, and not by the payer. It is thus the liability of the Recipient and not the payer. Howev .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cipient-KKFHPL, the assessment for the relevant assessment year 2002-03 was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 28.2.2005, where the receipt of the amount from the respondent assessee had been disclosed and the requisite tax had presumably been paid by the Recipient. The question of deduction of tax at source or payment of the same, was not raised by the Revenue at that time. In the case of the respondent assessee also, the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2002-03 had agai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

it ought to have been reasonably done within the limitation provided for completion of assessment under Section 153 of the Act. The period for assessment or reassessment under Section 147 of the Act would be a different case, as it relates to income escaping assessment and not a normal, regular assessment. It would, thus, be a special provision and would not be a guiding factor for considering reasonable period of limitation under Section 201. The Delhi High Court in the case of NHK Japan Broadc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

various decisions, had taken the view that four years period would be a reasonable period of time to initiate action, the Delhi High Court held that where no limitation was prescribed (as under Section 201 of the Act), reasonable period would be four years. Following such decision of the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal also held that four years period would be a reasonable period for initiating action under Section 201 of the Act. Much reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the Revenue on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ons in the Finance (II) Bill, 2009, it was clearly stated that to provide sufficient time for pending cases, it is proposed to provide that such proceedings for a financial year beginning from 1st April, 2007 and earlier years can be completed by the 31st March, 2011 . As such, the memorandum itself clarified that the proviso is for pending cases, and not decided cases. The Circular dated 3.6.2010, issued by the CBDT, also clearly specifies that the said proviso would be for pending cases and no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Tribunal was correct in holding that the order passed under Sec.201 (1) and (1A) of the Act on 28.1.2008 for the assessment year 2002-03, would be barred by limitation as the period of limitation would be four years from the end of the financial year in question. As such, we answer the first question raised in this appeal, in favour of the respondent assessee and against the Revenue. Question No.2: Now, coming to the second question of law, it is true that in view of the first question having be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssessee. Sri K V Aravind, learned counsel for the Revenue has submitted that sub-section (1A) of Section 201 of the Act provides for payment of interest. The sub-section, as it stood at the relevant time, prior to 1.7.2010, reads 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ayment was made by the assessee to the Recipient; till the date on which such tax was actually paid, i.e., tax was deposited by the Recipient. As we have already noticed above, the provision for tax deduction at source is only a mechanism for collection of tax by the payer, even though the liability to pay tax is that of the Recipient. The provision for payment of interest under sub-section (1A) of Section 201 of the Act is only of compensatory nature. It cannot be a means to penalise the payer. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

evenue is permitted to charge interest even after the Recipient has deposited the tax, the same would amount to undue enrichment of the Revenue, as even after receiving the tax, it would continue to get interest on the amount which has already been paid or deposited with it. As such, the liability of the assessee herein would not be for payment of interest after the period of deposit of tax by the Recipient. The Division Bench of this High Court, in the case of Solar Automobiles India (P) Ltd Vs .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version