9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d an order under Section 201(1) read with Section 201(1A) raising a demand of Rs. 1,64,24,800/-, including interest under Section 201(1A) on account of non-deduction of TDS under Section 194C of the Act. In the said assessment penalty under Section 271C to the tune of Rs. 83,80,000/- was levied much prior to the impugned order under Section 201 passed by the Assessing Officer. Such order passed by the learned Assessing Officer stood confirmed by the learned CIT(Appeals) in appeal preferred by the assessee, but penalty was subsequently deleted by the Coordinate Bench with the specific observation that the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source on payment of EDC as the same was not out of any statutory or contractual liability towards HUDA and therefore the impugned penalty was not leviable. A copy of the said order dated 29.12.2020 passed by the Coordinate Bench has also been placed before us by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee. 3. After the order passed by the Coordinate Bench the learned Assessing Officer passed order under Section 201(1) read with Section 201(1A) of the Act on 30.03.2021 raising a demand of Rs. 1,64,24,800/- including interest under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment referred to in section 200 has been filed; (ii) Four years from the end of the financial year in which payment is made or credit is given, in any other case; Provided that such order for a financial year commencing on or before the 1st day of April, 2007 may be passed at any time on or before the 31st day of March, 2011. (4) The provisions of sub clause (i) of sub-section (3) of section 153 and of Explanation 1 to section 153 shall, so far as may, apply to the time limit prescribed in sub section (3)." 6. Subsequently, Section 201(3) of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012 having retrospective effect from 1.4.2010 whereby the limitation prescribed in the said Section was substituted from 4 years to 6 years in passing the order where withholding tax statement had not been filed and the limitation of two years continued in cases where the statement is filed. The relevant provisions of Section 201(3) of the Act post amendment by Finance Act, 2012 are as follows: "(3) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) deeming a person to be an assessee in default for failure to deduct the whole or any part of the tax from a person resident in India, at any time after t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been passed on 30.03.2021 rather the same ought to have been passed within two years from the end of the financial year in which the statement was filed particularly having regard to the provisions of Section 200 of the Act, is found to be acceptable. We also note that the learned DR has not been able to bring on record anything contrary to the facts made available before us. 9. We also find that the identical issue has been considered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of DCIT, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi vs. Turner General Entertainment Net Works India Limited Mahipalpur, Delhi dated 14.10.2024, wherein under identical facts and circumstances of the case the assessment order completed on 28.03.2018 for F.Y. 2010-11 was found to be beyond the prescribed time limit and therefore quashed with the following observations: "10. As could be seen from a reading of the aforesaid provision, the only change which was effected from the earlier provision was the limitation period of four years in case of a deductor not filing TDS statement was extended to six years from four years. Whereas, in case of a person /deductor filing TDS statement, the limitation period of two years remained unch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive from 1st April 2010. Subsequently, by Finance Act, 2012, sub-section (3) of section 201 was again amended with retrospective effect from 1st April 2010. The aforesaid amended provision reads as under:- "(3) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) deeming a person to be an assessee in default for failure to deduct the whole or any part of the tax from a person resident in India, at any time after the expiry of- (i) Two years from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed in a case where the statement referred to in section 200 has been filed; (ii) Six years from the end of the financial year in which payment is made or credit is given, in any other case: 8. As could be seen from a reading period aforesaid provision, the only change which was effected from the 8. As could be seen the limitation period of four years in case of a deductor not filing TDS statement was extended to six years from four years. Whereas in of a person/deductor filing TDS statement, the limitation period of two years remained unchanged. The aforesaid sub-section (3) of section 201 was again amended by Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. 1st October 2014 by substituting the earlier pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under sub-clause (ii) to six years, the legislature has given it retrospective effect from 1st April 2010. Since, no such retrospective effect was given by the legislature while amending subsection (3) by Finance Act, 2014, it has to be construed that the legislature intended the amendment made to sub-section (3) to take effect from 1st October 2014, only and not prior to that. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (supra) while examining the principle concerning retrospectivity of an amendment brought to the statutory provisions has observed that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have retrospective operation. The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities. Law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past. The Hon'ble Court observed, legislations which modified accrued rights or which impose obligations or imposes new duties or attach a new disability have to be treated as prospective unless the legislative intent is clearly to give the enactment a retrospective effect. It was observed, if a provision is not for the benefit of a community, but, imposes some burden or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same view. "7. Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the principles enunciated in the above decision, the present case relates to financial year 2008-2009. The petitioner had filed statements as required under section 200 of the Act. The limitation for initiating proceedings under section 201(1) of the Act would, therefore, be governed by section 201(3)(i) of the Act as it stood at the relevant time which provided for a period of limitation of two years from the end of the financial year in which statement was filed in a case where the statement referred to in section 200 has been filed. The limitation for initiating action under section 201(1) of the Act, therefore, elapsed on 31st March, 2012 whereas the amendment in section 201 of the Act as amended by Finance Act No. 2 of 2014 came into force with effect from 28th May, 2012. The impugned notice, therefore, is clearly barred by limitation and, therefore, cannot be sustained. For the detailed reasons recorded in the judgment and order dated 5th February, 2016 rendered in the case of Tata Teleservices v. Union of India (supra), this petition also deserves to be allowed." 11. No contrary decision has been br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
