TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 462
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 201(3)(i) of the Act then in force till 01.10.2014 therefore such order is void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. Without prejudice to above, the impugned order under appeal has erred both on facts and in law in setting aside the issue for verification of the tax paid and income declared by the deductee placing onus upon the appellant to get the information verified, ignoring the proposition of law that onus to verify the above fact squarely lay on the department and the assessee cannot be burdened in the matter. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, delete, modify/ modify / amend the above grounds of appeal with the permission of the Hon'ble appellate authority. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that vide order dated 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 order dated 31.12.2021 is relevant findings of the coordinate Bench read as under :- "9. After deliberating at length on the issue in question, we find substance in the claim of the Id. AR that the aforementioned order passed by the AO u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, dated 29.03.2018 is barred by limitation. Admittedly, as per sub-section (3) to Section 201 of the Act, the time limit for passing an order under sub-section (1) to Section 201 i.e 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, in a case where the statement referred to in Section 200 was filed by the assessee prior to 01.10.2014, was 2 years from the end of the financial year in which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... already lapsed. As stated by the Id. AR, and rightly so, as per the settled position of law, an amendment enlarging the limitation cannot revive the limitation which had already expired prior to the date of such amendment, and as and where the legislature had intended to amend the enacted law with retrospective effect, it had expressly provided for a retrospective operation of the same. In sum and substance, the proceedings which due to bar of limitation had attained finality under the existing law cannot be revived by referring to the enlarged period of limitation made available on the statute vide a subsequent amendment, unless the amended provision is clearly given a retrospective applicability. Our/aforesaid observation is supported by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... aforesaid claim of the assessee, and observed, that as the amendment to sub-section (3) of Section 201 of the Act that was made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2014, w.e.f. 01.10.2014 had extended the time limit for passing of the order under sub-section (1) to Section 201 to 7 years, therefore, the order to be passed in the case of the assessee was well within limitation. On a writ petition filed by the assessee, the Hon'ble High Court held that as the amended provisions were to apply prospectively, therefore no order u/s. 201(1) of the Act could have been passed, as the limitation for passing of such an order had already expired prior to the amendment that was made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rohibition, as prayed for, deserves to be granted. 16. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these petitions succeed. The impugned notices /summonses are held to be invalid and the same are hereby quashed and set aside and the respondents herein are hereby restrained by writ of prohibition from proceedings with the impugned notices / summonses which are, as such, hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is mad absolute accordingly in each of the petitions. In the facts and circumstances the case, there shall be no order as to costs. " (emphasis supplied)" 10. In the backdrop of our aforesaid observations read a/w the settled position of law, we are of the considered view, that as the time limitation for passing an order u....