TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1224
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of ld CIT(A) in quashing the order passed by the AO u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. The appeal of revenue is barred by limitation by 9 days. The revenue has moved a petition before the bench seeking condonation of delay. We heard parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the submissions made in the petition, we condone the delay and admit the appeal of revenue. 3. In the cross-objections the assessee has raised certain legal issues and is also challenging the quantification of the default amount. 4. The facts relating to the case are stated in brief : The assessee is engaged in the business of providing business consulting information technology and outsourcing services. Information was received by the TDS Officer from the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceedings u/s 201(1) of the Act should have been completed before 31/3/2014. However the TDS Officer has initiated proceedings only on 5/7/2016 and accordingly it was contended that the proceedings are barred by limitation. 6. The Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 had inserted sub-section (3) and (4) in sec.201 of the Act and as per sub-section (3), a time period of two years was prescribed for passing order u/s 201(1) of the Act. The assessee placed its reliance on the above amendment, but the same was rejected by Ld CIT(A) by holding that the said amendment is held to be applicable from AY 2011-12 onwards and the year under consideration was AY 2010-11. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) held that the time limit of four years prescribed by Hon'ble Del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same, if not less Nevertheless, the Tribunal has given a greater period for commencement or initiation of proceedings. We are not inclined to disturb the time limit of four years prescribed by the Tribunal and are of the view that in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhatinda District Co-op MIL P. Union Ltd. action must be initiated by the competent authority under the Income Tax Act, where no limitation is prescribed as in Section 201 of the Act within that period of four years," 2.12 The Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v Satluj Jul Vidyut Nigam Limited (2010) 345 ITR 552 (HP) relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in NHK Japan Broadcasting Corpn case observed as under.' "We are in respectful agreement....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2016 issued by the Id. ACIT, TDS Circle 2(1), Bangalore initiating the proceedings under section 201(1)(1A), the said notice was also issued after the limitation period of four years. Hence, the said notice was also invalid and time barred and consequently all the proceedings thereto including the order passed under section 201(1) and (1A) dated 30.11.2016 is also time barred, invalid, bad in law and hence liable to be quashed." 12. I have carefully gone through the statement of facts and the grounds of appeal raised and perusing the assessment order as well as the arguments and submissions put forward by the authorized representatives of the appellant, the issues which arise are answered as under: 13. Ground No. 1, is general in nature a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplicable with effect from 1st April, 2010 and will accordingly apply in relation to assessment year 2011-12 and subsequent assessment years." 15. This is also confirmed by the Karnataka High Court in CIT v Bharat Hotels Ltd (2016) 384 ITR 77 (Kar). Relevant extracts of the decision are as under: "... With regard to the applicability of the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2009 with effect from 01/04/2010, it was also clarified to be from the assessment year 2011-12 and subsequent years." 15.1 However, the same decision has held that prior to such amendment, an order under section 201 should be passed within four years from the end of the financial year in question. In the present case, the impugned order is passed beyond the period....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted that the impugned order cannot be considered as barred by limitation. 9. The Ld A.R, however, submitted that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has considered the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttam Namdeo Mahale (supra) in the case of Bharat Hotels Ltd (supra) in paragraph 18 of its order and has held that the facts of the case before the Apex Court is different from the facts of the case in hand. Thereafter, in paragraph 24, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held that the period of limitation would be four years from the end of the financial year. Accordingly he submitted that the order passed by Ld CIT(A) does not call for any interference. 10. Having heard rival contentions, we are of ....