TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 120
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2017-18. 2. As the facts are identical in all these appeals, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking ITA No. 2609/Mum/2022 as a lead case. ITA No. 2609/Mum/2022 3. The assessee bank has challenged the order passed u/s. 201(1) r.w.s 201(1A) of the Act on various grounds passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) in the above mentioned assessment years. The assessee bank has also filed an additional ground in this year stating that the order passed u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act is barred by limitation, as it was not passed within the reasonable time from the initiation of the proceedings by relying on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra &Mahindra Ltd. vs. CIT (30 SOT 374), which was subse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther stated that the TDS was not deducted on the impugned amount as it was not taxable and that the same was exempted u/s.10(5) of the Act read with Rule 2B of the Rules. The assessee further stated that LTC was given only to designated place within India and that there was no bar u/s.10(5) of the Act or Rule 2B if the employee had travelled outside India when the ultimate destination was in India. The assessee further stated that as per Rule 2B, the employee should take the shortest route and permits to take a circuitous route to the designated place in India. It was also contended that the only condition for claiming LTC was that the employees were to travel by economy class, airfare of the national carrier and restriction of the exempti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act holding the assessee to be the assessee in default as per the provision of section 201(1) for non deduction and non deposit of TDS. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who had confirmed the order of the A.O. by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SBI vs. ACIT (TDS) vide order dated 17.12.2021 (128 taxmann.com 102) and also on the decision of the co-ordinate benches. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. During the appellate proceeding, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR for short) for the assessee relied on the additional ground raised by the assessee vide i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 2012 which was w.e.f. 01.04.2010. The ld. DR contended that the additional ground raised by the assessee does not hold merit. 10. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is evident that the assessee has raised an additional ground holding that the impugned order dated 03.01.2019 was barred by limitation by relying on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (supra). It is observed that on similar facts, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that though section 201 of the Act has not prescribed any limitation period, declared the assessee to be an assessee in default, the Revenue will have to exercise the said powers within a 'reaso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear in which the statement is filed". In order to give a fair opportunity to the assessee, we hereby remand this issue back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the issue that the impugned order was barred by limitation on the facts of the case. Hence, the appeal is set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A). As we have not gone into the merits of the case, the other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are kept open. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 2609/Mum/2022 is allowed for statistical purpose. ITA Nos. 2726 to 2728/Mum/2022 14. As the additional ground raised in the above appeal is not raised in these appeals, the findings on the additional ground in ITA No. 2609/Mum/2022 does not apply to t....