TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2154
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13.02.2025 as corrected in terms of the corrigendum dated 20.02.2025 [impugned order] passed under Section 260 (1A) read with Section 201 (1) and 201 (1A) of the Income Tax Act 1961 [Act] in respect of assessment year [AY] 2016-17. The petitioner also impugns a demand notice dated 13.02.2025 [impugned notice]. 2. It is the petitioner's case that the impugned order is barred by limitation as it has been passed beyond the period prescribed under Section 201 (3) of the Act. However, the Revenue counters the said contention and states that the said order has been passed pursuant to liberty granted by this court in terms of an order dated 21.03.2024 passed by this court in W.P.(C) 1615/2024 captioned Swiftrans International Pvt. Ltd. v. Income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ially, the payments made to the State Government for external development of the area where the petitioner's real estate projects were located. Thus, no TDS was required to be deducted from such payments. 5. The Assessing Officer [AO] issued various show cause notices under Section 201 (1)/201 (1A) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to show cause why it should not be treated as an assessee-in-default on account of not deducting TDS under Section 194-I of the Act in respect of EDC paid to HUDA. The petitioner responded to the said notices disputing that it is liable to deduct any TDS on EDC paid to HUDA. However, the AO did not accept the petitioner's contention and passed an order dated 16.03.2023 in respect of AY 2016-17 holding the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9. Notwithstanding that the decisions of this Court in DLF Panchkula Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (supra), the AO passed an order dated 31.10.2023 under Section 271C of the Act for AY 2016-17 imposing penalty for nondeduction of TDS under Section 194-I of the Act, on the payment of EDC. 10. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed a writ petition [being W.P.(C) 1615/2024 captioned Swiftrans International Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer Ward 77 4 New Delhi & Ors] in this Court impugning the order dated 16.03.2023 passed under Section 201 (1)/201 (1A) of the Act and an order dated 31.10.2023 passed under Section 271C of the Act. This Court allowed the said petition by an order dated 21.03.2024. 11. Thereafter, the AO issued a n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....200, whichever is later." 13. Thus, in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 201 of the Act, no order under Section 201 (1) of the Act could be passed deeming an assessee to be in default after expiry of seven years from the end of the financial year in which the payment is made or credit is given. In the present case, the payments of EDC in respect of which the impugned order is passed were made in FY 2015-16. The period of seven years from the end of the said financial year expired on 31.03.2023. Thus, the impugned order was clearly beyond the period of limitation stipulated under Section 201 (3) of the Act. However, the Revenue claims that passing the impugned order was not proscribed by virtue of Section 153 (6) (i) of the Act. The said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we set aside the impugned orders dated 16 March 2023 and 31 October 2023, we leave it open to the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law and the observations as rendered in Puri Constructions Private Limited." 16. This Court had allowed the writ petition [W.P.(C) 1615/2024] and had set aside the orders passed under Section 201 (1) and 201 (1A) of the Act as well as an order imposing penalty under Section 271C of the Act, which was premised on the allegation that the petitioner had failed to deduct TDS under Section 194-I of the Act in respect of payments of EDC to HUDA. However, the Court had also clarified that respondents were not precluded to proceed further in accordance with law as well as the observations made by this....