TaxTMI 
2026 (11) TMI 468
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing out of the order dated 30.03.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the AO") under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. There is a delay of 01 day in filing this appeal before us. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. Having considered the reasons set out in the application and the affidavit, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period and that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. Accordingly, the delay of 01 day is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant respectfully craves leave to add alter amend modify or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing as may be considered necessary. 6. The petitioner prays for justice and relief. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Assessee is a local authority of the Government of Rajasthan engaged in providing civic facilities in Jaipur. A TDS spot verification was conducted in the case of the Assessee on 20.10.2015. Proceedings under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act for the financial year 2009-10 were initiated by letter dated 01.12.2016. By the order dated 30.03.2017, the AO held that the Assessee had short deducted tax at source on advertisement contracts of Rs 1,61,76,589 by d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the statement was filed, so that the limitation expired on 31.03.2013. He submitted that the substitution of a period of seven years by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014 with effect from 01.10.2014 could not revive a limitation which had already expired, and relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Tata Teleservices v. Union of India [2016] 385 ITR 497 (Guj.). He further submitted that once the order under section 201(1) of the Act falls, the interest under section 201(1A) of the Act, being consequential, cannot survive. 7. The learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that the order dated 30.03.2017 was passed within seven y....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 seven years from the end of the financial year in which payment is made or credit is given." 10. The payments in question were made in the financial year 2009-10. The Assessee filed the statements of tax deducted at source under section 200 of the Act for all the four quarters of that year, the last of them on 30.05.2010, that is, in the financial year 2010-11. This fact is borne out by the acknowledgements placed before us and was not controverted by the learned DR. The case of the Assessee therefore fell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9;ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, to the facts of the case on hand and more particularly considering the fact that while amending section 201 by Finance Act, 2014, it has been specifically mentioned that the same shall be applicable w.e.f. 1/10/2014 and even considering the fact that proceedings for F.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09 had become time barred and/or for the aforesaid financial years, limitation under section 201(3)(i) of the Act had already expired on 31/3/2011 and 31/3/2012, respectively, much prior to the amendment in section 201 as amended by Finance Act, 2014 and therefore, as such a right has been accrued in favour of the assessee and considering the fact that wherever legislature wanted to give retrospective effect s....