TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew of this decision. Hence, we do not find any merit in the additional ground raised by the assessee. Therefore, the additional ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. Whether order u/s. 201(1) cannot be passed after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which TDS statement was filed? - As pertinent to point out that the assessee has not filed its quarterly statement before us for the purpose of considering the limitation period u/s.201(3) of the Act which specified two years from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed . In order to give a fair opportunity to the assessee, we hereby remand this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the issue that the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. vs. CIT (30 SOT 374), which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of DIT(IT) vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. [2014] 365 ITR 560 (Bom). 4. The brief facts of the case are that the A.O. observed that the assessee bank was allowing tax exemption on leave fare concession ( LFC for short)/ leave travel concession ( LTC for short) reimbursement where the employees have taken circuitous route in which foreign leg was included. It was also observed that the assessee has not included the LTC/LFC amount to the salary of the employees as perquisite and has also not deducted TDS on the reimbursed amount. The assessee has claimed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the employees were to travel by economy class, airfare of the national carrier and restriction of the exemption to the amount actually incurred. The assessee further stated that the exemption cannot be denied merely because there was a foreign leg involved in the travel. The assessee stated that in most of the cases there was no foreign leg involved and only around 20% to 25% cases of LTC there were foreign travel involved. The assessee contended that it was not under obligation to deduct tax at source u/s. 192 of the Act and the assessee was on a bonafide belief that it was not liable to deduct tax at source inspite of the LTC provided to employees even where foreign leg is involved. The assessee contended that it was not assessee in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authorised Representative (ld. AR for short) for the assessee relied on the additional ground raised by the assessee vide its submission dated 15.03.2023 for the reason that the impugned order was barred by limitation as the A.O. has failed to pass the order within a reasonable time to initiate the proceeding and had relied on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. (supra) which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. 8. The ld. AR brought our attention to clause (20)(x) at pg. no.53 of the decision of the Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. (supra) by the co-ordinate bench which held that the maximum time limit for passing the order u/s. 201(1) or 201(1A) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny limitation period, declared the assessee to be an assessee in default, the Revenue will have to exercise the said powers within a reasonable time . This as per our understanding clearly undertakes that it applies to cases prior to 01.04.2010. The assessee s case will not come under the purview of this decision. Hence, we do not find any merit in the additional ground raised by the assessee. Therefore, the additional ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 11. The ld. AR for the assessee also relied on the original ground no.1 which states that the provision of section 201(3) of the Act which envisages that the order u/s. 201(1) of the Act cannot be passed after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal ground raised in the above appeal is not raised in these appeals, the findings on the additional ground in ITA No. 2609/Mum/2022 does not apply to these appeals. The other grounds are identical as that of ITA No. 2609/Mum/2022, the finding applies mutatis mutandis to these appeals also. Therefore, all these appeals are remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A). 15. In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos. 2726 to 2728/Mum/2022 are allowed for statistical purpose. ITA Nos. 2729 to 2731/Mum/2022 16. The assessee has not taken the plea of limitation u/s. 201(3) of the Act in these appeals. It its observed that the assessee has relied on the order of the Hon ble Madras High Court in W.A. 1653 of 202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
