LYCOS INTERNET LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOWN AS YBRANT DIGITAL LIMITED),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-15(2), , HYDERABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES : BENCH “B” HYDERABAD (Through Video Conference) BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 531, 532, 533/Hyd/2016 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 M/s Lycose Internet Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle 15(2) (formerly known as M/s Ybrant Digital Hyderabad Ltd) Hyderabad [PAN: AAACV4079Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Assessee: Sri P. Murali Mohana Rao, AR For Revenue: Shri YVST Sai, CIT D.R. Date of Hearing : 17/02/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 06/05/2021 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, J.M.

These three assessee’s appeals for A.Y 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 arise from the CIT(A)-8, Hyderabad’s orders; all dated 15.2.2016 in case no. affirming Assessing Officer’s action treating it as assessee in default resulting in demands of Rs.2,43,131/-; 1,21,597/- and 4,61,884 /-respectively involving proceedings u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] . Heard both the parties Case file perused. 2. Coming to assessee’s alleged defence in issue triggering sec.201(1) & 201(1A) process in motion, there is no material before us which could rebut

ITA Nos. 531, 532 & 533/Hyd/2016 AAYs: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 Lycose Internet Ltd. (formerly known as Ybrant Digital Ltd.) the learned lower authorities’ action in principle that the assessee indeed has not deducted TDS on all the corresponding payments made u/s 194C 194(1) and 194J of the Act; as the case may be; respectively. We thus find no reason to interfere with the impugned action of learned lower authorities in principle. 3. Next comes the equally important issue of introduction of s.201(1) first proviso vide Finance Act, 2012 w.e..f. 1.4.2012. The Revenue’s vehement stand is that this proviso does not carry any retrospective effect in AY. 2006- 07 to 2008-09 before us. We find no force in Revenue’s instant argument. We note that the legislature has made it clear that the language employed in both sections 40(a) (ia) 2nd proviso which is to be read with the first proviso of sec.201 casts onus on the assessee to prove that the receipts concerned already stands assessed in recipients hands qua the corresponding expense(s). Hon’ble Delhi high court’s decision in CIT vs. Ansal Properties 279 CTR 384 (Delhi) holds the former proviso to be carrying retrospective effect since a curative which is inseparable from sec.201 first proviso. We thus adopt the very reasoning mutatis mutandis herein also to restore the former issue for Assessing Officer’s factual verification qua the respective assessments to be decided afresh. The assessee or its authorised representative shall appear before the Assessing officer on or before 31.08.2021 with all relevant evidences; at its own risk and responsibility which shall follow three effective opportunities of hearing. These assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in respective files. Pronounced in Open Court on 06th May, 2021.

Sd/- Sd/- (L.P. SAHU) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: the 06th May, 2021. * gmv 2

ITA Nos. 531, 532 & 533/Hyd/2016 AAYs: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 Lycose Internet Ltd. (formerly known as Ybrant Digital Ltd.)

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. M/s Lycose Internet Ltd. (formerly known as M/s Ybrant Digital Ltd.,) C/o P.Murali & Co., Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, 1st floor, Somajiguda, Hyderabad 500 082, Telangana. 2. ACIT, Circle 15(2), Hyderabad. 3. ACIT, Range 15, Hyderabad. 4. CIT(A)-8, Hyderabad. 5. Pr.CIT-8, Hyderabad. 6. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 7. Guard File.