TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 335X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for initiating action under section 201(1) of the Act, therefore, expired on 31st March, 2012 whereas the amendment in section 201 of the Act as amended by Finance Act No.2 of 2014 came into force with effect from 28th May, 2012. The impugned notices, therefore, are clearly barred by limitation and, therefore, cannot be sustained - Decided in favour of assessee - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10232 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 23-2-2016 - MS. HARSHA DEVANI MR. G.R.UDHWANI JJ. For the Appellant: Mr RK Patel, Advocate For the Respondent: Mrs. Mauna M Bhatt, Sr. Standing Counsel ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : MS. HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Rule. Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel waives service of notice of ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n (3) of section 201 of the Act which expired on 31st March, 2012. Thereafter, no further queries were raised from March, 2013 to February, 2015. Thereafter, the present Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice on 18th March, 2015 for alleged non-deduction of tax at source for the above-mentioned payment. The petitioner filed two detailed written submissions in response thereto. The details of the transactions were that the transaction towards upfront fees was taken on 30th September, 2009; the assessee had filed the TDS return for the quarter ended 30th September, 2009 in time on 14th October, 2009; the financial year in which the TDS return was filed ended on 31st March, 2010; and the limit of two years as mentioned in section 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounting period would be financial year 2008-2009. Therefore, the period of limitation for taking action under section 201 of the Act expired on 31st March, 2012. The above decision would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and that the impugned notices being barred by limitation are, therefore, without jurisdiction and hence, the said notices as well as all proceedings pursuant thereto deserve to be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the respondent is not able to dispute the aforesaid position of law. 6. This court in Tata Teleservices v. Union of India (supra), while considering a controversy similar to the one involved in the present case, in par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of the present case in the light of the principles enunciated in the above decision, the present case relates to financial year 2008-2009. The petitioner had filed statements as required under section 200 of the Act. The limitation for initiating proceedings under section 201(1) of the Act would, therefore, be governed by section 201(3)(i) of the Act as it stood at the relevant time which provided for a period of limitation of two years from the end of the financial year in which statement was filed in a case where the statement referred to in section 200 has been filed. The limitation for initiating action under section 201(1) of the Act, therefore, expired on 31st March, 2012 whereas the amendment in section 201 of the Act as am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
