TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 760X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has passed orders u/s 201(1A) only. Now, we have to decide as to whether these orders u/s 201(1A) are time barred or not because these were passed after expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment years. In the judgment in the case of CIT Vs Bharat Hotels Limited (2015 (12) TMI 1469 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ), it was held that the order passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act on 28.01.2008 for the AY: 2002-03 is barred by limitation as the period of limitation would be four years from the end of the financial year in question. Respectfully following this judgment, we hold that in the present case also, the orders passed after the end of the financial year in question is time barred and hence the same is quashed. Such time barre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le by the assessee company. Considering all these facts and in view of our above discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) in any of the years out of his order for three years being AY: 2011-12 to 2013- 14 - ITA Nos.868 to 874(Bang) 2015 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2016 - SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Shreehari Kutsa, CA For The Revenue : Smt. P. Renugadevi, JCIT ORDER PER BENCH All these appeals are filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2013-14. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he paper book and in particular, our attention was drawn to clause-1(ii) of the agreement available on page-2 of the paper book, as per which the assessee company was required to pay establishment charges at 10%, audit charges at 1% and Board s service charges at 10% over the tentative cost of land. He also submitted that the order passed by Karnataka Government on 21-06-2012 revising the rate to 4% being the service charge, administration charge, audit charge payable by the assessee to KIADB at as against earlier 21% is available on page 63-64 of the paper book. He further submitted that the finding of the CIT(A) is incorrect because no income has accrued in the hands of the deductee, so no TDS should be deducted. He also submitted that re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rawn our attention to para-15 of the written submission, wherein it has been submitted by the ld. AR of the assessee that as per the judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Bharat Hotels Limited in ITA No.393/2009 it has been held that where no time limit is prescribed for passing an order, the same has to be passed within a reasonable time and for the purpose of orders u/s 201 of the IT Act, the reasonable time should be four years from the end of financial year in question. Since all these orders were passed in the months of March/April, 2014 then at least for the financial years ending before 31-03-2010, all these orders of the AO should be held to be time barred. 5. As against this, ld. DR of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21-06-2012. It is seen that the AO himself has passed order u/s 201(1A) only in respect of first four years i.e. assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09 to 2010-11. Hence it is seen that for financial years ending on or before 31-03-2010, no order has been passed by the AO u/s 201(1) of the IT Act and for these years, he has passed orders u/s 201(1A) only. Now, we have to decide as to whether these orders u/s 201(1A) are time barred or not because these were passed after expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment years. In the judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs Bharat Hotels Limited (Supra), it was held that the order passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act on 28.01.2008 for the AY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TDS and if the assessee or the deductee felt that no TDS or lower TDS was deductible for any reason, they should have approached the payee i.e. KIADB to grant a certificate for no deduction of TDS or low deduction of TDS and since this was not done by the assessee or the payee, this contention is not acceptable that no TDS was deductible by the assessee company. Considering all these facts and in view of our above discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) in any of the years out of his order for three years being AY: 2011-12 to 2013- 14. 8. In the result, four appeals of the assessee for AY: 2006-07 2008- 09 to 2010-11 are allowed and remaining three appeals for AY: 2011-12 to 2013-14 are dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
