Tribunal grants appeal, finding tax default treatment invalid due to time limit breach.

The Tribunal overturned the decision of the lower authorities and allowed the appellant's appeal regarding the treatment of the appellant as "assessee in default" for non-deduction of TDS under sections 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act. Relying on the Delhi High Court's precedent, the Tribunal held that the order exceeded the reasonable time limit of 4 years for initiating proceedings under sections 201/201(1A), rendering it invalid. As a result, the appellant's appeal was granted, and the stay petition for demand was dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
Treatment of assessee as assessee in default u/s 201(1)/201(1A) for non-deduction of TDS u/s 195A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2008-09.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order treating the appellant as "assessee in default" for non-deduction of TDS u/s 195A. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer (A.O) based on the time limit for passing the order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. The A.O invoked sections 201(1) & 201(1A) due to non-deduction of tax at source on payments made to a non-resident Indian for property purchase. The CIT(A) held that the order was passed within the limitation period of 6 years from the end of the financial year, dismissing the appeal.

2. The appellant argued that the order u/s 201/201(1A) should not exceed 4 years, citing a Delhi High Court judgment. The Department contended that there is no specific time limit for non-residents under the Income Tax Act, relying on a Bombay High Court decision. The Tribunal examined the provisions of section 201(1A) and considered relevant case laws.

3. The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in Bharti Airtel case, which established 4 years as a reasonable time limit for initiating proceedings u/s 201/201(1A). It emphasized that the Parliament did not amend time limits for non-residents, accepting judicial precedents. Following the Delhi High Court's ruling, the Tribunal held that the 4-year period had lapsed in this case, rendering the order u/s 201/201(1A) invalid.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and allowed the appellant's appeal. The stay petition for demand was dismissed as the appeal was granted. The decision was pronounced in open court on 23rd June 2017.

---