TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons that the Assessee has mislead the Court with incorrect facts. The said allegation is not correct as we have already stated the dates on which returns were filed is discernible from the paper book. Next contention is that the time for passing the order was available up to 31.3.2015 as per the provisions of Sec.201(3)(ii) of the Act, and when such time limit was available the Finance Act, 2012, with retrospective amendment from 1.4.2010 extended he period of limitation to 6 years - order of the AO was passed on 11.9.2015 and therefore the order has to be regarded as one passed within the period of limitation i.e., 6 years from the end of the relevant FY i.e., on or before 31.3.2017. This contention is devoid of any merit. Firstly it is not a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Secondly, the contention is made on a total misconception. The provisions of Sec.201(3)(ii) of the Act will come into play only when return of TDS is not filed and where return of TDS is filed, the period of limitation is governed by the provisions of Sec.201(3)(i) of the Act which is 2 years from the end of the Financial year in which the return of TDS is filed. The Amendment to Sec.201(3(ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Particulars Section Amount (Rs.) TDS Deductible u/s Sec 201(1) (Rs.) Total Interest u/s 201(1A) (Rs.) Total Demand (Rs.) Contracts, Maintenance, Advertisement etc. 194C 39614744 787479 31850 819329 Police Bandobast Charges 194C 5300000 1060000 1245500 2305500 Payments to the Professionals 194J 8342415 834242 56502 890744 Total 53257159 2681721 1333852 4015573 Total sum payable by the assessee : ₹ 26,81,721 Add: Interest u/s 201 (1A) : ₹ 13,33,852 Total : ₹ 40,15,543 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be barred by time on the reasoning that the provisions of Sec.201(3) as Substituted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 1-10-2014 are applicable only prospectively and in respect of Financial years prior to the amendment in the law, the period of limitation will be governed by the provisions of Sec.201(3) prior to the aforesaid substitution. The learned DR reiterated the stand of the revenue that the substituted provisions of the law would apply. He also submitted that provisions of Sec.201(3)(i) of the provisions prior to substitution will not apply as the return of TDS filed by the Assessee was not within time and therefore had to be treated as non est in law. 13. As far as the question, whether section 201(3) as amended by Finance Act (No.2) 2014 would be applicable retrospectively or not, the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of TATA teleservices Vs. Union of India and Special Civil Application Nos. 1623, 2115 and 4771 of 2015 Judgement dated 16/02/2016, relating to Assessment Year 2008-09 took the view that section 201(3), as amended by Finance Act No.2 of 2014 shall not be applicable retrospectively and therefore, no order under section 201(i) of the Act c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Income Tax Officer, Circle IV, Ward-G, Ahmedabad and another, versus Induprasad Deveshanker Bhatt, reported in AIR 1969 S.C. 778 and while interpreting section 297(2)(d)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, after considering the earlier decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of S. S. Gadgil versus Lal and Co., [1964-53 ITR 231 = AIR 1965 SC 171 . Considering the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, the Hon ble Gujarat High Court held that the facts of the case before it and more particularly considering the fact that while amending section 201 by Finance Act, 2014, it has been specifically mentioned that the same shall be applicable w.e.f. 1/10/2014 and even considering the fact that proceedings for F.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09 had become time barred and/or for the aforesaid financial years, limitation under section 201(3)(i) of the Act had already expired on 31/3/2011 and 31/3/2012, respectively, much prior to the amendment in section 201 as amended by Finance Act, 2014 and therefore, as such a right has been accrued in favour of the assessee and considering the fact that wherever legislature wanted to give retrospective effect so specifically pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TDS Return Filing date 1. Quarter-I 09.07.2010 2. Quarter-II 04.01.2011 3. Quarter-III 21.03.2011 4. Quarter-IV 30.06.2011 However, upon verification of appeal records, it was seen that no such details were filed before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), only letters of adjournment were filed, which are encapsulated in the order of the CIT(A). The details in question do not form part of the Statement of Facts filed with Form No. 35 either. This constitutes a mistake apparent from record, besides misleading the court with incorrect facts, on part of the assessee. 5. Further, it is noted that for the year under consideration i.e. FY 2010-11, where no statements were filed, the limitation was upto 31.03.2015 as per the (unamended) provisions applicable from 01.04.2010. Before expiry of limitation on 31.03.2015 and before accrual of any rights to the assessee, the I.T. Act was amended by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
