TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RAT HIGH COURT] have held that in respect of financial year 2007 08 and earlier years, only proceedings that were pending could be completed by 31st March 2011 and as such no fresh proceedings to be commenced for the said period. Undisputedly no proceedings under section 201 were pending before the AO. By the time the proceedings under section 201 of the Act were initiated by issuing notice under section 201 on 27th January 2014, it has already become barred by limitation. That being the case, looked at from any angle, the impugned order passed under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act being barred by limitation has to be quashed. Accordingly, we do so. Consequently, the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is reversed and set aside. - ITA no. 5283/Mum/2016 - - - Dated:- 22-6-2018 - SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Karthik Natrajan For the Respondent : Shri M.V. Raj Guru ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 6th June 2016, passed by eh learned Commissioner (Appeals) 58, Mumbai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the order passed is barred by limitation. 4. Before the first appellate authority, it was submitted by the assessee that the provisions of section 201 of the Act as existed during the assessment year 2008 09 did not prescribe any period of limitation for initiation of proceeding under the said provision. However, it does not mean that in the absence of any limitation period prescribed under the statute the Assessing Officer can initiate proceeding under section 201 of the Act at any time. It was submitted, even in the absence of any limitation period prescribed under the statute the Assessing Officer must initiate proceeding within a reasonable period. It was submitted, since, the Assessing Officer has initiated the proceedings and passed the order under section 201 of the Act after expiry of more than four years from the end of the financial year wherein the payment was made the order is barred by limitation. Referring to the proviso to section 201(3) of the Act which was brought to the statute by Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1st April 2010, it was submitted, in respect of financial year commencing on/or before 1st day of April 2007, an order under section 201 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he aforesaid decision is applied to the facts of the assessee s case, the order passed under section 201 of the Act is barred by limitation as the Assessing Officer has initiated proceeding in January 2014, i.e., after expiry of four years from the end of assessment year 2008 09. The learned Counsel for the assessee drawing our attention to the provisions of section 201(3) of the Act submitted that the proviso to the said section makes it clear that in respect of financial year commencing on or before 1st April 2007, an order under section 201 of the Act has to be passed before 31st March 2011. He submitted, though, from the language of section 201(3) of the Act it appears that the limitation prescribed therein is only applicable to resident deductees, however, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bharti Airtel Ltd. Ors. v/s Union of India Anr., in judgment dated 19th December 2016 in W.P. (C) no.2166 of 2012, have held that even in case of non residents also reasonable period of limitation has to be read into the Act. Thus, he submitted, the order passed under section 201(1) of the Act being beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is barred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation period will not empower the Assessing Officer to pass an order under section 201 of the Act at any time at his sweet will. The Hon'ble Courts have held that, even, in the absence of limitation period prescribed under a particular provision, the order has to be passed within a reasonable period. In the context of section 201 of the Act itself, the Hon'ble Delhi High court in NJK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (supra) approving the decision of the Tribunal has held that a period of four years would be reasonable period of time for initiation of proceeding under section 201 of the Act. The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been approved and followed in subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd. and Anr. v/s Union of India, [2016] 385 ITR 436 (Del.) and in CIT v/s C.J. International Hotels Pvt. Ltd., ITA no.57 of 2015. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., 365 ITR 560 also followed the decision in NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (supra). We are also conscious of the fact that the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Vodafone India Ltd. v/s ITO, ITA no.45 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
