TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Bheemarasetty Sunitha [ 2017 (8) TMI 476 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] . Hence, we hold that the proceedings initiated by the AO are barred by limitation. Accordingly we set aside the orders of the lower authorities and allow the appeal of the assessee. - I.T.A.No.145/Viz/2020 - - - Dated:- 5-2-2021 - Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon ble Judicial Member And Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon ble Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR For the Respondent : Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju, DR ORDER PER D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Hyderabad-10 in Appeal No.CIT(A), Hyderabad-10/10057/2019-20 dated 18.03.2020 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f tax at source u/s 195 of the Act for the A.Y.2011-12 and consequent levy of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act. The assessee filed explanation objecting for treating the assessee as assessee in default, since, the assessee has not entered into any agreement directly with non-resident, made the agreement with her representative Sri T.Nagi Reddy, an Indian and resident who was the power of attorney holder. The assessee further submitted that the payment was made in India in INR through account payee cheque and no remittance was made to any foreign country. Hence argued that there is no question of making TDS thus requested the AO not to treat the assessee in default u/s 195 and 201(1A) of the Act. However, the AO was not convinced with the exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. The assessee also raised ground of limitation for passing the order u/s 201(1A) stating that the order passed by the AO was barred by limitation. However, the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the ground of the assessee stating that there was no time limit prescribed under the law for passing the order u/s 201(1A). 6. Against which the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has purchased the land which was registered on 24.04.2010 and the AO passed the order u/s 201(1A) on 22.03.2018, beyond the limit of 4 years which was held to be barred by limitation. The Ld.AR argued that as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section does not deduct or after deducting fails to pay the tax as required by or under this Act, he or it shall be liable to pay simple interest at 2 fifteen] per cent per annum on the amount of such tax from the date on which such tax was deductible to the date on which such tax is actually paid.] 7. The Hon ble Delhi High Court while deciding the writ petition in the case of Bharti Airtel Another rendered the judgement considering the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Finance (No.2) Bill, 2009. In respect of time limit, Hon ble Bombay High Court has considered the issue in detail and held that 6 years is reasonable period for initiating the action u/s 201 and 201(1A). The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the decision relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra Ltd.. Considering the Hon ble Supreme court decision in CIT Vs.Vegetable Products Ltd., 88 ITR 192 (SC) and CIT Vs. Karamchand Premchand Ltd (1960) 40 ITR 106, we are also of the view that the decision favourable to the assessee is required to be taken. Accordingly following the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court we hold that reasonable period is 4 years for initiating of proceedings u/s 201/201(1A). In the instant case the property was registered on 18.7.2007 and the assessee is liable to deduct the TDS during the F.Y.2007-08 and the 4 years time limit for initiating action u/s 201/201A expires before March 2012. In the instant case, notice u/s 195 treating the assessee as assessee in default was issued on 11.08.2013 beyond the 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
