TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 288
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant submits that the order under section 201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Act passed by the TO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue and hence, revision of the same by the Pr. CIT is erroneous and bad in law. 4. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT has erred to not take into consideration that the order passed by the TO under Section 201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Act is bad in law, void, in excess of and/or in want of jurisdiction and otherwise illegal. 5. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Pr. CIT has erred in applying Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act while passing the order under section 263 of the Act although the aforesaid explanation 2 is inserted with effect from 1 June 2015 i.e. not applicable to the financial year ('FY') under consideration viz. FY 201-11. 6. Base on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant submits that the impugned order passed under section 262 of the Act by the CIT be struck down. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 263 days....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... space at R City Mall, Ghatkopar of R Mall Developers Pvt. Lid. having PAN: AADCR3444F & TAN: MUMR20468A. S. No Name of the Tenant PAN TAN Total amount paid TAN AO 1 Infiniti Retail Ltd. (Croma) AACCV1726H MUMV13188A 27091195 TDS CIR-1(2) MUMBAI 4. Since the jurisdiction over the above cases lies with your charge, this information is being forwarded to your off ice. 5. It is further submitted that if the above case does not pertain to your charge, it is kindly requested that suitable instructions may be issued to the off icials to forward the same to the correct jurisdiction under intimation to this office. 4. Against the show-cause notice issued, the assessee has filed the explanations and the assessee also provided the copy of rental agreement of common area maintenance charges. The AO find that the TDS deducted by the asssessee in respect of payment to M/s R.Mall Developers Pvt Ltd @2% u/sec194C of the Act instead of 10% u/sec194 I of the Act. The A.O. relied on the facts and legal decisions and observed that the payment made for use of rental premises for the FY ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 7. Contra, Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT- (TDS) and submitted that the Revenue has not filed the appeal against that CIT(A)order due to low tax effect. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue envisaged by ld. AR that the order of the CIT(TDS) does not satisfy the twin conditions. The CIT-(TDS) has wrongly observed that the order passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue without any proper findings or any enquiry report. 9. We find that the assessee against the order under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act dated 23.03.2018 has filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and has taken additional ground of appeal in respect of validity of passing the order and was allowed. We consider it appropriate to refer to the observations of the CIT(A)-59 Mumbai. The CIT(A) has dealt on the disputed issue at Page 2 Para 2 of the order dated14/05/2020, which is read as under: 2.0 ADDITIONAL GROUND 2.1 Vide letter filed in this office dated 17.01.2020, the appellant stated that this ground was directed against the illegality of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2.5 On the issue of limitation, the TDS officer stated that the assessee had never brought this ground before the Assessing Officer during the proceedings under section 201/201(1A)of the Act. Further as per the provisions of section 201(1) amended on 01.04.2010, the relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereunder:- (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 seven years from the end of the financial year in which payment is made or credit is given........ The TDS Officer stated that the order passed by the AO is within the time limit provided by the law and this ground of the assessee may not be admitted. 2.6 The copy of the remand report was sent to the appellant for his counter comments and the appellant submitted its counter comment vide letter dated 03.03.2020. The appellant stated that additional ground may be allowed as the order is time barred. The appellant relied on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Tata Teleservices (2016] reported in 66 taxma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sidering HC-NIC Page 62 of 64 Created On Tue Mar 22 01:53:00 IST 2016 62 of 64 the fact that wherever legislature wanted to give retrospective effect so specifically provided while amending section 201(3) (ii) of the Act as was amended by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1/4/2010, it is to be held that section 201(3), as amended by Finance Act No.2 of 2014 shall not be applicable retrospectively and therefore, no order under section 201(i) of the Act can be passed for which limitation had already expired prior to amended section 201(3) as amended by Finance Act No.2 of 2014. Under the circumstances, the impugned notices / summonses cannot be sustained and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside and writ of prohibition, as prayed for, deserves to be granted. 3.4 The above was followed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the cases of Eris Life Sciences(P) Ltd vs. Dy.CIT (2016] reported in 68 taxmann.com 229 and Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Union of India (2016] reported in 68 taxmann.com 229, where the aforementioned paragraph was cited. 3.5 The Id. Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, in Sodexo SVC India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITAno.980/Mum./2018] h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 liability the presumption would be it will apply prospectively. The rule against retrospective operation is a fundamental rule of law that no statute shall be construed to have retrospective operation unl....