DCIT TDS CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2371/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 August 2018AY 2009-103 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) correctly followed the Gujarat High Court's decision that a demand raised beyond 4 years, when returns were filed in time, is invalid. Therefore, the tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which held that the assessment order was time-barred. The assessee, a nationalized bank, had its branches levied with interest under Sections 201 & 201(1A) of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order levying interest under Section 201 & 201(1A) was passed within the prescribed time limit, considering the assessee had filed returns in time.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201,Section 201(1A),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 20.08.2018

आदेश / O R D E R Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:-

1.

These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, dated 30.06.2017 in to 61,88 to 93,&/16-17/CIT(A)-17 for the assessment year 2009-10 passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s. 201/201(1A) of the Act.

2.

The Revenue has raised three identical grounds in its appeals however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in 2 & 2371/Chny/2017 holding that the assessment order passed by the Ld.AO is after the time lapse of four years when the order was issued on 28.03.2016 which is well within the time limit of six years from the financial year.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a nationalized bank who has preferred appeal against the demand notice issued against their four branches viz., to 93 - Mint Street Branch, ITA No.54 to 61 – Purasawakkam Branch, ITA No.46 - Nungambakkam Branch and ITA No.47 –Mahalingapuram Branch.

4.

In the case of all the above mentioned branches of the assessee bank, the Ld.AO has levied interest invoking the provisions of Section 201 & 201(1A) of the Act. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case M.R. Shah J, S.H. Vora J 201, 201(3) vide order dated 5th February 2016 (Date of publication 28.02.2016) held that since the appellant had filed the returns in time, the demand which has been raised beyond 4 years is invalid. Since the Ld.CIT(A)

5.

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 20th August, 2018 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 201

All 1,566 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →