TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y much beyond the period of 3 years from the end of relevant assessment year and also beyond the period of 4 years from the end of relevant Financial Year 2001-02. In this situation, we are inclined to hold that the conclusion of the CIT(A) also gets strong support from the dicta laid down in the case of CIT vs. Hutchinson Essar Telecom Ltd. ( 2010 (4) TMI 45 - DELHI HIGH COURT) and it was rightly concluded by the first appellate authority that impugned proceedings were beyond prescribed time limitation and thus the same deserve to be annulled. Therefore, we are unable to see any ambiguity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the impugned order. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 4853/Del./2011 - - - Dated:- 19- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re of ₹ 2,11,01,212/- on account of the cost of 75 vehicles provided to the dealers as incentive rewards then the assessee was rightly held as a assessee in default in respect of such tax payable to the department. The Ld DR strongly contended that the total amount of TDS liability and interest thereon u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act was rightly determined by the AO in this regard. The ld. DR challenging the relief granted to the assessee by the first appellate authority vehemently contended that the CIT(A) granted relief for the assessee without any reasonable basis merely on the surmises and conjectures. Therefore, impugned order may be set aside by restoring that of the AO. 4. Replying to the above the Ld. AR placing reliance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was specific information with the AO for this valid action therefore order of the CIT(A) also not sustainable on this count. 6. On careful consideration on rival submissions at the very outset, from the operative part of the impugned order of the first appellate authority. We observe that the CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee on merits with following conclusion and finding :- The issue no. 1 is reopening of case u/s 201(1)/ 201(1A) is decided by ITAT (SB), Pune Bench in the case of Mahindra Mahindra vs. DCIT(2009) 313 ITR(AT) 263. As earlier, there was no time limit u/s 153/201(1)/201(1A), the various Courts had expressed the maximum limit should be 4 years for reopening a case, comparing the case with that of reopening ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .02.2011 and thereby asking the assessee to show cause as to why it should not be treated as an assessee in default within the meaning of section 201(1) of the Act for AY 2002-03. 8. As per preposition laid down by Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (Supra) the date of knowledge is not relevant for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction u/s 201(1)(1A) of the Act. Their lordship further held that the time limit of 4 years prescribed by the tribunal called for no interference and the action was to be initiated by the competent authority under the Act , where no limitation was prescribed, within the period of 4 years. Their lordship explicitly hold that the acceptance of liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 153 of the Act, though for completion of assessment proceedings. The provisions of reassessment are under sections 147 and 148 of the Act and they are on a completely different footing and, therefore, do not merit consideration for the purpose of this case. 19. Even though the period of three years would be a reasonable period as prescribed by section 153 of the Act for completion of proceedings, we have been told that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has, in a series of decisions, some of which have been 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. 20. The rationale for thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e , we are inclined to hold that the present case of the assessee is also concerned with the FY 2001-02 pertaining to assessment year 2002-03 wherein notice for initiation of proceedings u/s 201(1) of the act was issued on 9.2.2011 which were admittedly initiated beyond eight years and 10 months from the end of FY 2001-02 and obviously much beyond the period of 3 years from the end of relevant assessment year and also beyond the period of 4 years from the end of relevant Financial Year 2001-02. In this situation, we are inclined to hold that the conclusion of the CIT(A) also gets strong support from the dicta laid down by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hutchinson Essar Telecom Ltd. (Supra) and it was rightly co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
