TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s 201 and 201(1A) is 4 years and it is barred by limitation. Therefore, following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we are unable to sustain the orders of the lower authorities. Accordingly, the order passed u/s 201 / 201(1A) is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed. - I.T.A.No.119/Vizag/2016 And S.A. No.10/Vizag/2016 - - - Dated:- 23-6-2017 - SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri B.V. Rao, AR For The Respondent : Shri S.R.S. Narayan, DR ORDER PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, Accountant Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the CIT(A)-10, Hyderabad dated 26.11.2015 for the A.Y. 2008-09. 2. All t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yed in India for more than 365 days in the four previous consecutive years details of which are already available on record for which there is no dispute. Therefore, invoking the provisions of Sec 195 and treating the appellant as assessee in default is not in accordance with law. 4. Subject to ground No. 2 and 3, the entire purchase consideration was paid from time to time during December 2000 to March 2006 in cash for which there is no dispute and therefore, the very order passed Dt. 31.03.2014 is barred by limitation U/s Sec 201(1)(3)(ii). 5. The appellant crave to submit that all facts, contentions and case laws mentioned in the accompanied statement of facts shall be treated as part and parcel of these grounds of appeal. Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccordingly dismissed the appeal. For ready reference, we extract the relevant paragraph no.6 of the CIT(A) order: Ground no.4 is with regard to the validity of the order passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A). It is the argument of the assessee that as per section 6 of the I.T. Act the vendor was a resident and payments were made during the period December 2000 to March 2006 and no action could have been taken as per the provisions of section 201(3) after 31.3.2012. As already mentioned above, no evidence has been furnished that the payments were made to the brother of the vendor during the period December, 2000 to March 2006 as claimed by the assessee and finally the agreement to sale with general Power of Attorney was registered on 4.5.2007 i.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mit specified in the Act. Further, the Ld. D.R. argued that in this case, the assessee required to deduct the tax at source but not deducted same and the assessee also failed to furnish the TDS return before the A.O. Since there is no time limit, the intention of the legislature in the case of non-residents to treat the assessee in default without limitation and accordingly argued that CIT (A) has rightly dismissed the appeal. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials placed on record. The relevant provisions of section 201(1A) of the Act is reproduced as under: 201(1A) 1 Without prejudice to the provisions of sub- section (1), if any such person, principal officer or company as is referred to in that subsection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Delhi High Court also considered the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Vs. CIT (2010) (10) SCC 29, wherein, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that the proceedings should be initiated u/s 201/201(1A) within reasonable period and it cannot extend without limitation. After considering the decision of the Hon ble Supreme court in GE India Technology and the Vodafone Essar Mobiles Ltd. the Hon ble Delhi IT Act. The Ld. DR relied on the decision of Hon ble BombHigh Court followed its own decision in the case of CIT Vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Limited (supra) and held that 4 years is the reasonable period for initiating the proceedings u/s 201/201(1A) of IT Act. The Ld. DR relied on the decision of Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
