TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (3) TMI 215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er. The assessee's appeals are taken up first for consideration. 2. In the first three grounds, the assessee has expressed its grievance against treating it to be an assessee in default under s. 201(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act). In the next two grounds, the assessee is aggrieved against holding "housing norm" to be a part of salary subject to deduction of tax at source. In addition to this, this assessee has raised an additional ground only in respect of financial years 1988-89 to 1994-95. By way of this additional ground, the assessee has challenged the validity of the order dt. 16th Dec., 1999 passed under ss. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act on grounds of limitation. After hearing the parties on the admissibility of the ground, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the learned counsel had been considered in Thai Airways. The learned Departmental Representative also contended that a different view could be taken if there was new material or where it was necessary to do so on a closer and more analytical approach. For this proposition, the learned Departmental Representative relied on the following judgments: (1) CIT vs. Kalpetta Estates Ltd. (1994) 122 CTR (Ker) 410 : (1995) 211 ITR 635 (Ker) (2) J. Bheemananda Gupta vs. Asstt. CIT (2001) 168 CTR (Kar) 464 : (2001) 250 ITR 537 (Kar). (3) Jt. Family of Udayan Chinubhai vs. CIT (1967) 63ITR 416 (SC) To the above arguments of the learned Departmental Representative, the reply of the learned counsel was that on facts m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses, the orders were passed beyond a period of four years and hence, were held to be invalid. 5. Pitted against the above is the solitary order in the case of Thai Airways. In view of the conflicting views expressed by the Co-ordinate Benches of the same Tribunal, one of the courses open to us is to refer the matter to a Special Bench. However, we are not inclined to do so on account of several reasons which we now proceed to record. 6. First and foremost, the Tribunal has questioned the authority of the Tribunal to read a time limit where none is prescribed in the statute. In the case of Motorola, a larger Bench of the Tribunal considered the issue whether notice issued under s. 142(1) was barred by limitation though no limitation pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity of the High Courts in the country is a matter for consideration." 9. In the prevent case also, besides the numerical strength, otherwise also, the case of the assessee is not on a weak footing inasmuch as that the plea of reasonable cause for not deducting the tax at source on the foreign component of salary stands accepted by the Tribunal for these very years in penalty proceedings. This was in ITA Nos. 3019 to 3029/Del/2001, dt.17th Sept., 2004 whereby the penalty levied under s. 271C was cancelled. In this order, the Tribunal has relied on its orders in case of similarly placed other companies, viz. Marubeni Corporation (Liaison Office) vs. Jt. CIT (ITA Nos. 3581 to 3587/Del/2000, dt. 11th Dec., 2001), Fuji Bank Ltd. (ITA Nos. 27....