TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 866
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in not appreciating the fact that sub section 3 of S. 201 prescribes two types of limitations. First clause is applicable for cases where statement referred to in S. 200 has been filed whereas Ind is for the cases other than those specified in clause I of S. 201(3). In the instant case, limitation would be hit by clause 2 of S. 201(3) i.e. 7 years from the end of the relevant financial year, therefore, date of limitation in this case would be 31.03.2018. Hence, order is not barred by limitation. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in not appreciating the fact that no specific period of limitation has been prescribed for issuance of notice of verification u/s 201 and 201(1A) of the Act, rather subsection (3) of section 201 of the Act provides time limit for passing of order u/s 201(1) of the Act. 4. That the order of the CIT(A) being erroneous in law and on facts and needs to be vacated. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend any one or more of the grounds of the appeal as stated above as and when need for doing so may arise. 3. Brief fact of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s submitted that section 201(3) of the Act provides the time limit within which an order u/s 201(1) of the Act can be made. He has also submitted that the assessee has filed the TDS statement within time so the time limit for assessment is two years. The Ld. CIT (A) has rightly allowed the appeal by holding that the impugned order was time barred. He has relied upon the following judicial decisions ; 1. S.S. Gadgil Vs. Lal &Co. [1964 53 ITR 231(SC) 2. K.M. Sharma Vs. Income-tax-Officer [2002] 122 Taxman 426 (SC) 3. National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. v. Union of India [ 2003] 128 Taxman 361 (SC) 4. Tata Teleservices v. Union of India [2016] 385 ITR 497 (Gujarat) 5. Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Union of India ( 68 taxmann.com 229) [2016] (Gujarat) 6. Sodexo SVC India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [ 2018] 92 taxmnan.com 260 (Mumbai-Trib.) Section 201 of the Act reads as under :- Section 201 of the Act provides for consequences of failure to deduct or pay taxes at source. Section 201(3) of the Act provides for time limit within which an order under Section 201(1) of the act can be made. Section 201(3) and Section 201(4) of the Act were inserted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....March 2011- substantial Vide Finance Act, 2014, there was substantial overhauling of provision of Section 201 (3) of the Act, where the period of two years and six years provided earlier, was substituted and a uniform period of limitation of seven years was adopted irrespective whether the Statements were filed or not. The new Sub section (3) to Section 201, was explicity made applicable from October 1, 201was earlier, was substitute Section 201(3) of the Act (as ay made applicable from October filed or not. The provisions as per Section 201(3) of the Act (as amended vide Finance AC 2014) is reproduced below for your Honor's ease of reference : 3) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) deeming a person be an failure to deduct the whole or any part of the tax from a person resident in India assessee in default for expiry of seven years from the end of the financial year in which payment is made or credit is given." 10. As could be seen from a reading of the aforesaid provision, the only change which was effected from the earlier provision was the limitation period of four years in case of a deductor not filing TDS statement was extended to six years from four years. Where....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....financial year in which the payment was made or credit given. The aforesaid amendment was made effective from 1st April 2010. Subsequently, by Finance Act, 2012, sub-section (3) of section 201 was again amended with retrospective effect from 1st April 2010. The aforesaid amended provision reads as under:- "(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---- (i) Two years from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed in a case where the statement referred to in section 200 has been field; (ii) Six years from the end of the financial year in which payment is made or credit is given, in any other case : 8. As could be seen from a reading period aforesaid provision, the only change which was effected from the 8. As could be seen the limitation period of four years in case of a deductor not filing TDS statement was extended to six years from four years. Whereas in of a person/deductor filing TDS statement, the limitation period of two years remained unchanged. The aforesaid sub-section (3) of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t while amending sub-section (3) of section 201 by Finance Act, 2012, by extending the period of limitation under sub-clause (ii) to six years, the legislature has given it retrospective effect from 1st April 2010. Since, no such retrospective effect was given by the legislature while amending sub-section (3) by 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 retrospectiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Troykaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supro) again expressed the same view. "7. Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the principles enunciated in the above decision, the present case relates to financial year 2008-2009. The petitioner had filed statements as required under section 200 of the Act. The limitation for initiating proceedings under section 201(1) of the Act would, therefore, be governed by section 201(3)(i) of the Act as it stood at the relevant time which provided for a period of limitation of two years from the end of the financial year in which statement was filed in a case where the statement referred to in section 200 has been filed. The limitation for initiating action under section 201(1) of the Act, therefore, elapsed on 31st March, 2012 whereas the amendment in section 201 of the Act as amended by Finance Act No. 2 of 2014 came into force with effect from 28th May, 2012. The impugned notice, therefore, is clearly barred by limitation and, therefore, cannot be sustained. For the detailed reasons recorded in the judgment and order dated 5th February, 2016 rendered in the case of Tata Teleservices v. U....