DATLA SWAPNA (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SIRAVURI SWAPNA KUMARI),VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (IT), VISAKHAPATNAM

Succinctly stated, the AO based on the fact that the assessee had during the subject year purchased an immovable property admeasuring 488 sq yds at Visakhapatnam from Shri Kondepudi Narayana Sekhar (PAN: AQGPK6076Q), resident of U.S.A vide Document No.2626/2016 on 08/06/2016 registered before the SRO, Anandapuram, Visakhapatnam District for a consideration of Rs.24,45,000/-, but had failed to deduct the tax at source on the sum payable to the aforesaid non-resident seller under section 195 of the Act, raised a demand aggregating to Rs.7,7,17,670/- under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, viz., (i) under section 201(1) of the Act: Rs.4,98,382/-; and (ii) under section 201(1A) of the Act: Rs.2,19,288/-.

The assessee, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us.

Shri GVN Hari, Advocate, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal submitted that the CIT(A) had based on misconceived facts dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the ground of limitation. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed an appeal against the order of the ITO, Ward (Int. Taxn), Vizag, dated 30/09/2021 before the CIT(A) on 03/01/2022. The Ld. AR submitted that though the appeal under the normal circumstances as per the prescribed time limit ought to have been filed latest by 30/10/2021, but due to the unprecedented disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the aforesaid period for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation, as per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, dated 10/01/2022, from 15/03/2020 till 28/02/2022 stood excluded. It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that considering the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the

Per contra, Sri A.P. Babu, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) did not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties in the backdrop of the orders of the authorities below.

Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, dated 10/01/2022, the period from 15/03/2020 to 28/02/2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as per any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. In view of the same, we find substance in the Ld. AR’s contention that the CIT(A) had inadvertently erred in losing sight of the fact that considering the extended period of limitation pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, dated 10/01/2022, the appeal filed by the assessee was well within the stipulated time period. Accordingly, we hereby set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) to his file with a direction to readjudicate the case on the specific grounds of appeal based on which the impugned order of assessment has been assailed before him.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations.