2020 (2) TMI 26 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal dismisses Revenue's petition on limitation grounds, ruling against retrospective application of Section 201(3).

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2 (1), Bangalore. Versus M/s. Karnataka State Cricket Association, M. Chinnaswamy Stadium, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bangalore

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's miscellaneous petition, affirming that the order passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) was barred by limitation. ... Proceedings initiated u/s.201(1) & 201(1A) - Period of limitation - retrospective effect of amendments - period extended from 2 years to 6 years - HELD THAT:- It is not correct to state that the Tribunal has given a finding in paragraph-7 of its order that the Assessee filed details of TDS statement filing dates before CIT(A). The Tribunal has only stated in paragraph-7 that it was submitted by the Assessee before CIT(A) that it had filed TDS for the relevant FYs as per details given below. The tribunal has not stated that it was filed before CIT(A). From the paper book filed in the appellate proceedings before the Tribunal, the relevant returns of TDS are available at pages-17-20 and the dates of filing TDS returns for the various quarters are correct. Even in the MP the revenue has not taken a stand that return of TDS were not filed or the dates of filing of TDS return as given by the Assessee are not correct. The revenue has gone to the extent of making allegations that the Assessee has mislead the Court with incorrect facts. The said allegation is not correct as we have already stated the dates on which returns were filed is discernible from the paper book. Next contention is that the time for passing the order was available up to 31.3.2015 as per the provisions of Sec.201(3)(ii) of the Act, and when such time limit was available the Finance Act, 2012, with retrospective amendment from 1.4.2010 extended he period of limitation to 6 years - order of the AO was passed on 11.9.2015 and therefore the order has to be regarded as one passed within the period of limitation i.e., 6 years from the end of the relevant FY i.e., on or before 31.3.2017. This contention is devoid of any merit. Firstly it is not a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Secondly, the contention is made on a total misconception. The provisions of Sec.201(3)(ii) of the Act will come into play only when return of TDS is not filed and where return of TDS is filed, the period of limitation is governed by the provisions of Sec.201(3)(i) of the Act which is 2 years from the end of the Financial year in which the return of TDS is filed. The Amendment to Sec.201(3(ii) by the Finance Act, 2012 is totally irrelevant because those provisions are not applicable in the present case at all. In fact all these aspects were elaborately discussed in paragraph-12 to 15 of the order of the Tribunal. In fact in paragraph-15 of the order the applicability of provisions of Sec.201(3)(i) of the Act to the facts of the case has been specifically discussed by holding that those provisions alone apply to the case of the Assessee because he has filed return of TDS. The MP has been filed on total misconception of facts and deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Timeliness of proceedings initiated under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act.2. Applicability of amended Section 201(3) retrospectively.3. Accuracy of the Tribunal's findings regarding the filing dates of TDS returns.4. Misleading the court with incorrect facts by the assessee.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Timeliness of Proceedings Initiated under Section 201(1) and 201(1A):The Assessee contended that the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice dated 26.2.2015 were barred by time as per Section 201(3) of the Act. The Tribunal examined the timeline and found that the order passed by the AO on 11.9.2015 was beyond the permissible period as the limitation period had expired. The Tribunal referred to the statutory amendments and concluded that the order for FY 2010-11 was barred by limitation and thus quashed it.2. Applicability of Amended Section 201(3) Retrospectively:The Tribunal deliberated on whether Section 201(3) as amended by Finance Act (No.2) 2014 would apply retrospectively. Citing the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court's decision in Tata Teleservices Vs. Union of India, the Tribunal held that the amended provisions were not retrospective. The Tribunal noted that the limitation period for FY 2010-11 had already expired before the amendment, and therefore, the amended Section 201(3) could not revive the time-barred proceedings.3. Accuracy of the Tribunal's Findings Regarding the Filing Dates of TDS Returns:The Revenue argued that the Tribunal incorrectly stated that the Assessee had filed TDS returns for the relevant FYs before the CIT(A). The Tribunal clarified that it had only mentioned the Assessee’s submission and did not confirm the filing before CIT(A). The Tribunal verified the dates from the paper book and found them correct, dismissing the Revenue's claim of incorrect facts.4. Misleading the Court with Incorrect Facts by the Assessee:The Revenue accused the Assessee of misleading the court with incorrect facts. The Tribunal refuted this allegation, stating that the dates of filing TDS returns were accurate and discernible from the paper book. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue's allegations were unfounded and that the Assessee did not mislead the court.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's miscellaneous petition, affirming that the order passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) was barred by limitation. The Tribunal held that the amendments to Section 201(3) did not apply retrospectively and that the Assessee had not misled the court with incorrect facts. The Tribunal's judgment was pronounced on January 29, 2020.