TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s are involved, we are proceeding to dispose them off through a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Facts being identical, we begin with the assessment year (AY) 2000-01. 2. One of the grounds raised by the Revenue in this appeal is against the order of the CIT(A) quashing/annulling the order passed by the Income Tax Officer (OSD) (TDS)-3(1), Mumbai (in short the 'AO') u/s 201(1)/(1A) r.w.s. 250 by treating the same as time barred. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that a survey u/s 133A was conducted in the premises of the assessee on 25.02.2004. Subsequently, on 03.03.2011, the AO requested the assessee to provide an explanation as to why no tax is deductible u/s 194J in respect of payments made towards Inter- Connection Usag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order passed u/s 201(1)/(1A) of the Act. In the meantime, the AO passed an order dated 26.03.2013 u/s 201(1)/(1A) r.w.s. 250 of the Act holding that IUC is in the nature of technical services since there exists human intervention and hence liable for TDS u/s 194J of the Act. The present appeal is concerned with the appeal effect order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the AO. 4. In appeal filed by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) followed the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the impugned assessment year and allowed the appeal by observing as under : "In light of the above order of the Hon'ble Tribunal, considering that the original order passed under section 201(1)/(1A) of the Act is itself invalid, the appeal effect order pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010. The same reads as under:- "No order shall be made under sub-section (1) deeming a person to be an assessee in default for failure to deduct the whole or any part of the tax from a person resident in India, at any time after the expiry of- (i) Two years from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed in a case where the statement referred to in section 200 has been filed. (ii) Six years from the end of the financial year in which payment is made or credit is given, in any other case: Provided that such order for a financial year commencing on or before the 1st day of April, 2007 may be passed at any time on or before the 31st day of March, 2011". 24. It is the contention of the Ld. Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt has held in the case of Tata Teleservices vs. Union of India (supra), by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Gadgil vs. M/s Lal & Co. (supra), held that the amendment brought in to sec. 201(3) by Finance Act No.2 of 2014 extending the time limits will not apply to AY 2007-08 and 2008-09, which has become time barred as per the pre-amended provisions. 26. In our view, the ratio of the decision rendered in the case of S.S. Gadgil vs. M/s Lal & Co. (supra) by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd (supra) can be conveniently applied to the facts of the present case. We have earlier held that the variou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....009, through which the provisions of sec.201(3) was inserted. 28. The Ld D.R also placed reliance on the decision rendered by Lucknow bench of ITAT in the case of Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation (supra). The facts prevailing in that case was that the AO issued notices u/s 201(1) of the Act on 09-02-2007 for assessment year 2005-06. The Tribunal noted that the notice has been issued within 3 years from the end of the assessment year, which was the time limit prescribed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (supra). Since, the proceedings were pending as on 1.4.2007, the Tribunal held that the provisions of sec. 201(3) including the proviso as inserted by Finance Act No.2 of 2009 would apply and h....