DCIT TDS CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CHENNAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
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?
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
आदेश / O R D E R Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:-
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.
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.
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.
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)
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
- Sbi, (Erstwhile Sbbj), Baran vs ITO (TDS), KotaITA 143/JPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Santosh Kumar Bhogi, Visakhapatnam vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 253/VIZ/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Raj Construction, Vadodara vs The ITO, Ward TDS-2, VadodaraITA 327/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Himanshusinhji Jyotendrasinhji Jadeja… vs DCIT/ACIT Circle-1(1), RKT, RajkotITA 325/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Jagadish Panchal, Udaipur vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 314/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026