Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Chandra Poojari, AM & Shri George George K, JM
Per George George K, JM :
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) dated 11.09.2017. The relevant assessment year is 2009-2010.
The grounds raised read as follow:-
“1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) '"CIT(A)''' is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the order under section 154 is void as the original order under section 201(1)/(1A) is barred by limitation. 3. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the order under section 201(1) / (1A) was passed on 29th March, 2016 which is beyond the period of six year, from the end of the financial year and hence the said order is time barred as per the provisions of section 201(3) applicable for the above assessment year. 4. The CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the
ITA No.598/Coch/2017. 2 M/s.Punjab National Bank. amendment of sub-section (3) to section 201 made by Finance Act, 2014 is applicable prospectively and hence will not applicable to the subject assessment year. 5. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the decision of the Gujarat High Court, in the case of Tara Teleservices v. UOI reported on 28.02.2016 (Date of Pronouncement 05.02.2016) 6. The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the grounds of appeal mentioned supra as also all consequential relief thereto. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, rescind, modify and / or withdraw in any manner whatsoever all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal.”
The brief facts of the case are as follow: The assessee is one of the branches of Punjab National Bank. It used to collect fixed deposits from the public. For the financial year 2009-2010 for the fixed deposit collected from the public, the assessee had paid interest. The assessee did not deduct TDS u/s194A of the I.T.Act with regard to certain interest payments. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has passed an order u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) of the I.T.Act on 30.11.2016. The total tax and interest demanded was at Rs.11,09,940.
The assessee later filed a rectification application requesting to rectify the order passed u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) of the I.T.Act. The assessee had further filed Form 15G / 15H that came in its possession subsequent to the order passed u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) of the I.T.Act. The Assessing Officer passed rectification order u/s 154 of the I.T.Act by reducing the demand raised u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) of the I.T.Act to Rs.10,11,156.
ITA No.598/Coch/2017. 3 M/s.Punjab National Bank.
Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal to the first appellate authority. The assessee contended before the first appellate authority that the order u/s 154 of the I.T.Act dated 30.11.2016 issued by the Assessing Officer is time barred and hence demand of Rs.10,11,156 need not be paid. The assessee relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Tata Teleservices. v. UOI & Anr. [(2016) 385 ITR 497 (Guj.)] for the proposition that the order passed u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) of the I.T.Act is barred by limitation. The CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follow:-
“8. From the above, it is very clear that the above referred judgment is against the order u/s 201(1) of the Act and not regarding the order u/s 154 of the I.T.Act, 1961. In the present case, the appellant did not file any appeal against the orders u/s.201(1) and 201(1A) passed on 29-03-2016. This appeal is filed against the order passed under section 154, which was passed at the request of the appellant.
According to section 154(7), the rectification of an order can be filed at any time before the expiry of 4 years from the end of the financial year, in which the order sought to be amended was passed. In the present case, the order sought to be amended was passed on 30-11-2016 and the rectification application for the same can be filed up to 30-11- 2020.
From the above, it can be seen that the order u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed on 29- 03-2016 was in time and not an order barred by limitation of time as alleged by the appellant.”
ITA No.598/Coch/2017. 4 M/s.Punjab National Bank.
Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee has filed a brief written submission, which reads as follow:-
“1. The assessing officer had passed order under Section 154 dt 30.11.2016 which was only an extension of the order passed by the assessing officer u/s. 201/201(1A) of the Income tax Act, 1961 dt.28.03.2016 for the financial year 2008-2009 (AY.2009-10) and appeal against the same was preferred by the respondent herein and order was passed by the CIT (A) in case ITA-1038/2016-17 dt.11.09.2017 . 2. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the respondent has preferred the above appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. 3. Since order under section 201 (1 )/1A passed by the assessing officer dt 29.03.2016 was time barred (Four years from the end of assessment year 2009-10 the order passed U/s.154 for that assessment year also become time barred. It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the appeal Commissioner order and thus render justice.” 7. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders passed by the Income-tax authorities.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee in the instant case did not file any appeal against the order dated 29.03.2016 passed u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) of the I.T.Act. This appeal arises out of the order passed u/s 154 of the I.T.Act. The assessee had filed rectification application u/s 154 of the I.T.Act and had requested the Assessing Officer to give reduction for the amount of tax payable u/s 201(1) and interest thereon u/s 201(1A) of the I.T.Act, based on Form No.15G / 15H
ITA No.598/Coch/2017. 5 M/s.Punjab National Bank. submitted by the assessee. Consequent to the assessee’s rectification application, the demand raised u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) of the I.T.Act was reduced to Rs.10,11,156 from Rs.11,09,940. Since no appeal was preferred against the orders passed u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) of the I.T.Act and the same having attained finality, we cannot hold those orders are time barred. As per section 154(7) of the I.T.Act, the rectification order can be passed before the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended. In the instant case, the order sought to be amended was passed on 30.11.2016 and the rectification application for the same can be valid up to 30.11.2020. The judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Tata Teleservices (supra) relied on by the assessee is not applicable to the facts of the present case since the assessee has not challenged the orders passed u/s 201(1) / 201(1A) of the I.T.Act. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the order passed by the CIT(A) is correct and in accordance with law. Hence, we uphold the same.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced on this 04th day of September, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) (George George K.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Cochin ; Dated : 04th September, 2019. Devdas*
ITA No.598/Coch/2017. 6 M/s.Punjab National Bank.
Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT (TDS), Kochi. 4. The CIT(A) Thrissur. 5. DR, ITAT, Cochin 6. Guard file. BY ORDER,
(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Cochin