TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law and the same is liable to be quashed. - Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Pritesh L. Shah, A.R. For the Revenue : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.D.R. ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- ITA No. 2505/Ahd/2018 is filed by the assessee as against the appellate order dated 29-11-2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad arising out of the order passed under section 206C(6A) r.w.s. 206C(1) and 206C(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for failure to Collect Tax at Source relating to the Asst. Year 2012-13. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual and Proprietor of M/s. A.S. Didwani Scra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccepted by the Assessing Officer and thereby demanded @1% TCS of u/s. 206C(1) of Rs. 4,90,309/- and interest u/s. 206C(7) of Rs. 3,77,538/- vide order dated 26-07-2017. 3. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad. In spite of notices to the assessee, the assessee failed to appear, hence the ld. CIT(A) by exparte order, confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and thereby dismissed the assessee appeal. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the following Grounds of Appeal. 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in confirming the demand of Rs. 4,90,309/- raised under section 206C being 1% TCS considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TaxCorp (A.T.) 67021 3 Gujarat High Court CIT V. Anagram Wellignton Assets Management Co. Ltd. 96 CCH 0410 : 389 ITR 0654 4 Delhi High Court CIT V. NHK Japan Broadcasting Telecom Ltd. 78 CCH 0381 : 323 ITR 0230 5 Mumbai High Court DIT (International Taxation) V. Mahindra Mahindra 48 Taxmann.com 150: 225 Taxman 306 : 365 ITR 560 : 270 CTR 105 Non Applicability of Section 206C Sr. No. Court/ITAT Case Name Reported in 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the assessee. The order passed by the Assessing Officer well within the reasonable time and additional ground raised by the assessee is liable to be rejected since the same was raised for the first time before this Tribunal. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record including the case laws filed by the assessee. Following the Apex Court judgment in NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT (329 ITR 0383) First we adjudicate the additional ground raised by the assessee as it goes to the root of the matter namely whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation or not? In our considered view, this issue is no more res integra and settled by various case laws by higher Judicial Foru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.2. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hutchison Essar Telecome Ltd. reported in [2010] 323 ITR 0230 wherein it was held as follows: 19. Even though the period of three years would be a reasonable period as prescribed by s. 153 of the Act for completion of proceedings, we have been told that the Tribunal has, in a series of decisions, some of which have been mentioned in the order which is under challenge before us, taken the view that four years would be a reasonable period of time for initiating action, in a case where no limitation is prescribed. 20. The rationale for this seems to be quite clear-if there is a time-limit for completing the assessment, then the time-limit for initiating the proceedings mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 206C for passing order by Assessing Officer with reference to failure of assessee to collect taxes, reasonable period of limitation of four years from end of financial year in question was to be followed for passing order under said section . 7. Admittedly the assessment year involved in this cases A.Y. 2012- 13 and four years ends on 31-03-2016. However the show cause notice was issued by the A.O. on 27-06-2017 and order was passed on 26-07-2017 which is beyond 4 years. Therefore the order passed by the A.O. is construed to be an order passed after the period of limitation, the same is not maintainable in law and the same is liable to be quashed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No. 2505/Ahd/2018 is hereb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
