WIN CABLE & DATACOM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT (TDS) 3(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before S/Shri R.C. Sharma (AM) & Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02) I.T.A. No. 3636/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2002-03) I.T.A. No. 3637/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2003-04) I.T.A. No. 3638/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2004-05) Win Cable & Datacome ACIT-TDS- Private Limited Vs. 3(1) Rahejas, 4th Floor Mumbai. Corners of Main Avenue & V.P. Road, Santacruz (West) Mumbai-400 054. PAN No. AAACW2239G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Manoj C. Dixit Department by Shri V. Vidhyadhar Date of Hearing 20.04.2018 Date of Pronouncement 20.4.2018 O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (JM) :-

All the above mentioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the learned CIT(A) dated 24.1.2014 relevant to A.Ys. 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05.

prescribed, the statutory powers must be exercised within a reasonable time. 2. Without prejudice to what is stated above, the appellant submits that the order under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) passed by the Assessing Officer beyond a period of four years from the end of financial year was barred by time limitation. The appellant submits that even if no period of limitation is prescribed, the statutory powers must be exercised within a reasonable time. 3. (a) The appellant submits that the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the learned Tax Recovery Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the Assessing Officer") that payment for pay channel cost amounting to Rs.4,10,36,864/- made to distributor of signal is a contract for work and liable for deduction under section 194C of the Act and accordingly erred in holding that the assessee is an assessee in default under section 201(1) of the Act. (b) The appellant submits that as regards payments for cost of pay channels, the payees merely distribute signals to the appellant and accordingly, there is no question of any involvement of "work". (c) The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in law in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer that the appellant has entered into services agreement with Multi- System Operators for transmission of signals relying on certain clauses in the agreements entered into for the distributors of signals. The appellant submits that the agreements entered into with Distributors are merely for distribution of signals to the appellant and reference to "Services" in the agreement is to distribution not involving any work to be carried on as by the Distributors so as to attract the provisions of section 194C of the Act.

(d) The appellant submits that the payment made for procured of signals is not to any broadcasters or telecasters and accordingly, the provisions of section 194C are not applicable and therefore no tax was required to be deducted at source. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer that none of the payees are broadcasters and telecasters is immaterial as the expression "work" in Explanation III of section 194C assigns an inclusive meaning. The appellant submits that a wider interpretation of the term "any work" is uncalled for and the meaning of the aforesaid term should be restricted to what is contemplated under Explanation III to section 194C and since impugned payments are not in the nature of broadcasting or telecasting the provisions of section 194C are not applicable. 4. (a) Without prejudice to what is stated above, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the appellants submission that once the occupants/payees have already offered the amount of pay channel cost as income in their respective hands and has paid applicable taxes on the same, the tax cannot be recovered again from the appellant and the provisions of section 201(1) ought not to be attracted. (b) The appellant submits that the TDS provisions are mere machinery provisions to enable collection of tax. The payees would have included the payments made by the appellant as part of their income on which taxes would have been paid in accordance with the provisions of the Act and accordingly, provisions of section 201(1) ought not to apply as the same would amount to double taxation of the same income.

situated at 4th Floor, Raheja, Corner of Main Avenue & V.P. Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai-400 054. The assessee company was also operating from the said premises and as such detail pertaining to the assessee was also gathered at the time of survey. During the proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee failed to deduct tax at source on the expenses claimed under following head, details of which were as under :- S.No. Name of the Company F.Y. Feed charges Pay channel cost 1 M/s. Win Cable & Datacom 2000-01 - 4,10,36,864/- Pvt. Ltd.

S.No. Name of the Company F.Y. Feed charges Pay channel cost 1 M/s. Win Cable & Datacom 2001-024 - 18,25,75,405/- Pvt. Ltd.

S.No. Name of the Company F.Y. Feed charges Pay channel cost 1 M/s. Win Cable & Datacom 2002-03 2,76,35,025/- 33,40,32,445/- Pvt. Ltd.

S.No. Name of the Company F.Y. Feed charges Pay channel cost 1 M/s. Win Cable & Datacom 2003-04 90,48,730/- 14,87,77,141/- Pvt. Ltd. (upto 31.7.2003) The assessee failed to deduct tax at source as required u/s. 194C of the Act, 1961. Show-cause notices dated 23.9.2003 were issued and served on assessee on 24.9.2003. The assessee paid total amount for pay channel cost amounting to the tune of ` 4,10,36,864/-. Tax was required to be deductible @ 2.2% i.e. to the tune of ` 9,02,811/- and interest was also chargeable u/s. 201(1A) to the tune of ` 13,15,847/-. Accordingly, addition to the tune of ` 13,15,847/- was raised. Accordingly, addition to the tune of ` 47,58,100/- was raised in A.Y. 2002-03, addition to the

tune of ` 72,10,293/- was raised in A.Y. 2003-04 and addition to the tune of ` 77,58,502/- was raised in A.Y. 2004-05 . Since the assessee was not satisfied, therefore, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, therefore, the assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal. Issue No. 1&2 3. We have heard the arguments advanced by both the parties and perused the record. Learned Representative of the assessee has argued that no doubt the present appeals have been filed by 784 days delayed but the same was unintentional because the assessee shifted his office from Andheri to Santacruz and relevant documents remained closed in a box which could not be sent to the Chartered Accountant concern. It is also argued that the assessee did not receive any notice for the period of w.e.f. 24.1.2014 to 25.5.2016 and in this regard affidavit has also been filed by the Director of the company, therefore in the said circumstances delay is liable to be condoned. It is also argued that the case of the assessee has also been covered by its own order passed by the Tribunal, therefore, the assessee has good case on merit hence, delay is liable to be condoned in the interest of justice. However, on the other hand, learned DR refuted the said contention. Taking into account of all these facts and circumstances narrated by the Ld. Representative of the assessee, we noticed that the assessee shifted his office from Andheri to Santacruz and it may happen that the relevant documents may not be handed over to the concern chartered accountant. Moreover, the Revenue did not issue any notice for the period 24.1.2014 to 25.5.2016. In this regard, the affidavit of the director of the company is also on record. It has also come into the noticed that the case of the

assessee is good on merits and almost covered by the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in its own case, therefore, we find justifiable to condone the delay. We also placed reliance upon the law settled in (1998) 7 Supreme Court cases 123 in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy. Accordingly, we condoned the delay. 4. Now, coming to issue No. 1&2 in which the assessee took the plea of limitation. It is the argument of the representative of the assessee that the show-cause notice in all the cases were issued by the Assessing Officer on 23.9.2003, which was served upon the assessee on 24.9.2003 and the proceedings u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) read with section 194C of the I.T. Act, 1961 was concluded on 29.3.2011, therefore, the orders in question are not justifiable specifically in view of the findings of the Hon’ble ITAT in ITA No. 5190/Mum/2014 in the case of Hathway Nsik Cable Network Private Limited Vs. Tax Recovery Officer(TDS) Range-1 dated 15.2.2017 and ITA No. 3512 to 3514/Mum/2014 in the case of Hathway Cable and Datacom Limited Vs. the Tax Recovery Officer (TDS), Range-1 dated 7.9.2016 and ITA No. 1810/Mum/2014 in the case of Hathway Cable and Datacome Limited Vs. The Tax Recovery Officer (TDS)-1, dated 1.6.2016. Learned Departmental Representative has refuted the said contention. It is undisputed that the show-cause notice in all the cases were issued on 23.9.2003 and proceedings u/s. 201(1) & 201(1A) read with section 194C of the Act were concluded on 29.3.2011. It is not in dispute that there is specific limitation for passing the order which has now been decided even in the case of assessee relied above in which limitation has been confined to extent to one year. Relevant findings in the case in ITA No. 3512 to 3514/Mum/2014 is hereby reproduced below :-

2.2. We have considered the rival submission and perused the material available on record. Before coming to any conclusion, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant portion from the order dated 01/06/2016, in the case of assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 (ITA NO.1810/Mum/2014) for ready reference and analysis:- “The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.12.2013 passed by learned CIT(A)-14, Mumbai. 2. Grounds of appeal relate to the demand raised u/s. 201(1) and interest charged u/s. 201(1A) of the Act. 3. The assessee has also raised a ground urging that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation. 4. The facts relating to the relating to ‘limitation’ are discussed in brief. The revenue carried out a Survey operation u/s. 133A of the Act in a group concern of the assessee on 17.09.2003. The assessee was also operating from the very same premises and hence details pertaining to the assessee were also gathered. During the course of survey proceedings, the financial statements of the assessee were also examined and it was noticed that the assessee has not deducted tax at source on the expenditure incurred as “Pay Channel Cost”. The AO took the view that the assessee should have deducted tax at source u/s 194C of the Act Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 23.9.2003 and the same was served upon the assessee on 24.09.2003. Finally the AO (here ‘TRO(TDS)’) passed order on 28.3.2011 raising demand u/s 201(1) and charging interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the order of the AO on majority of the issues, but gave partial relief with regard to the period for computing interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act. 5. In the appeal filed before us challenging the order passed by Ld CIT(A), the assessee has urged a legal issue before us, i.e., the contention of the assessee is that the order passed by the AO is barred by limitation. Since this is a legal issue and the facts relating thereto are already available on record, we admit the same. We have noticed in the preceding paragraph

that the assessing officer has passed the impugned order on 28.3.2011 in pursuance of notice issued on 23.9.2003, i.e., he has passed the order after expiry of eight years from the date of issuing of notice. It is pertinent to note that the Income tax Act does not prescribe any time limit for initiation of proceedings u/s 201(1) and also for passing order after initiation of proceedings. 6. The Ld A.R relied on the decision rendered by the jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of DIT Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd (2014)(365 ITR 560). The above said decision has been rendered by the Hon’ble High Court on the appeal filed by the revenue challenging the decision rendered by the Special bench. The Special bench of Tribunal had rendered its decision on the issue of limitation period as under:- (a) The proceedings u/s 201(1) can be initiated in the extended period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year if the income by virtue of sum paid without deduction of tax at source by the payer chargeable to tax in the hands of the payee is equal to or more than one lakh rupees. If on the other had such amount is less than Rs.1 lakh, then the lower period of four years as prescribed u/s 149(1)(a) from the end of the relevant assessment year available for initiation of proceedings u/s 201(1). (b) The completion of proceedings u/s 201(1), that is the passing of the order under this sub-section, has to be within one year from the end of the financial year in which proceedings u/s 201(1) were initiated. The same time limits for initiation and passing of orders will be valid for the passing of order under section 201(1A) also. 7. The assessee challenged the first part of the decision (para (a)) and the Revenue challenged the second part of the decision (para(b)) supra. The Hon’ble High Court disposed of the appeal filed by the revenue by upholding the view taken by the Tribunal in para (b) supra with regard to the time limit for completion of the proceedings. It was stated that the appeal filed by the assessee is still pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. 8. Thus, we notice that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that the proceedings initiated u/s

201(1)/201(1A) should be completed within one year from the end of the financial year in which proceedings u/s 201(1)/201(1A) were initiated. Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessing officer has passed the orders after expiry of eight years from the date of issuing of notice. Accordingly, the order passed by the AO is barred by limitation. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A), since the order passed by the AO is barred by limitation. Accordingly the same stands quashed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.”

2.3. If the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal vide aforesaid order dated 01/06/2016 and the ratio laid down by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of DIT vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (Supra), order dated 03/07/2014 are kept in juxtaposition with the facts of the present appeals, we are summarizing hereunder the necessary details oozing out from the appeals under consideration:-

It is noted that the assessee companies were engaged in the business of receiving and distributing local and satellite channel programs. A survey action was conducted u/s 133A of the Act at the office premises of Hathway Nasik Cable Network Pvt. Ltd., which is also a group concern of the assessee on 17/09/2003. The assessee company was operating from the same premises, where the survey was conducted. The ld. Assessing Officer after a period of six years passed an order u/s 201 and 201(1A) of the Act holding that the assessee has committed

default u/s 201(1) of the Act by not deducting the tax on the payments as required u/s 194C of the Act. The Assessing Officer determined the impugned sums to be paid as tax and also levied interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act. However, without going into much deliberation, the issue to be adjudicated on legal issue whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation. So far as, passing of impugned orders is concerned, we have summarized the same in preceding paras of the order, which shows that the orders have been passed after expiry of eight years from the date of issuing of notice. Admittedly, the Income Tax Act does not prescribed any time limit for imitation of proceedings, u/s 201(1) and also for passing order after initiation of proceedings. It is noted that the Special Bench in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra took a decision on the issue of period of limitations and the Department challenged the said decision before the Hon'ble High Court, wherein, (DIT vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2014) 365 ITR 560) (Bom.) it was held as under:- “6 It appears that after the Appeals were filed an additional ground was raised on 18.05.2006 which reads as under: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is void abinitio being barred by limitation?” 7 It appears that the Revenue made an application on 30.08.2006 before the learned President of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for constitution of a Special Bench under Section 255(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for consideration of the issue of limitation which was raised by the Assessee as an additional ground. This request of the Revenue was accepted and the learned President constituted a Special Bench for deciding the following question and also disposing of the Appeal: “Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, an order under Section 195 r/w Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is barred by limitation within four years from the end of the relevant Financial Year in the absence of any express provision in the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 8 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the issue of limitation goes to the very root of the exercise of jurisdiction in this case. It rejected the objections to raising of this ground and

thereafter, dealt with the same extensively. By the order under challenge the Tribunal interalia held as under: “(ii) Section 195(1) casts duty on the person responsible for paying or crediting to the account of a nonresident any sum chargeable to tax under this Act for deducting tax at source. On failure to deduct or pay to the Government after deducting, the person responsible is treated as Assessee in default u/s 201(1). (iii) “Any such person” referred to in section 201(1) extends not only the person deducting and failing to deposit the tax but also the person failing to deduct the tax at source. (iv) Where no time limit is prescribed for taking an action under the statute, the action can be taken only within a reasonable time by harmoniously considering the scheme of the Act. (v) Tax recovery proceedings are initiated only after the passing of order u/s 201(1) and that too if the person responsible fails to comply with notice of demand u/s 156. (vi) The order u/s 201(1) is akin to the assessment order. “Assessment” includes “reassessment”. (vii) The time limit for initiating the proceedings u/s 201(1) cannot be the same as that for the passing of order under this subsection. Time for initiation is always prior to the time for completing the proceedings.

(viii) The reasonable time for initiating and completing the proceedings u/s 201(1) has to be at par with the time limit available for initiating and completing the reassessment as the assessment includes reassessment. (ix) The maximum time limit for initiating the proceedings u/s 201(1) or (1A) is the same as prescribed u/s 149 i.e. four years or six years from the end of the relevant assessment year, as the case may be depending upon the amount of income in respect of which the person responsible is sought to be treated as Assessee in default. (x) The maximum time limit for passing the order u/s 201(1) or (1A) is the same as prescribed u/s 153(2) being one year from the end of the financial year in which proceedings u/s 201(1) are initiated.

(xi) Any order passed under Section 201(1) or (1A) cannot be held as barred by limitation if it is not passed within four years from the end of the relevant financial year.” 9 It is the correctness of these findings which is an issue before us. 10 Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing in support of this Appeal tendered the reframed questions of law and termed them as substantial. He submits that in relation to questions (1) and (2) the Assessee has challenged the order of the Tribunal in Income Tax Appeal No.1968/2009 filed before this Court. That Appeal has been admitted particularly because it raises the issue of applicability of Section 201(1) and Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. He submits that selfsame issue and question is raised in the instant Appeal. Therefore, it deserves to be admitted and tagged with the Assessee's Appeal, namely, Income Tax Appeal No.1968/2009. 11 Mr.Suresh Kumar submits that the Revenue has been urging before the Tribunal and equally before this Court that the impugned order and conclusion reached by the Tribunal is ex- facie erroneous and vitiated in law. It is submitted that there could not be any time limit leave alone period of limitation for the purpose of exercise of powers by the Authority. In such circumstances the Tribunal should not have fixed any outer limit. Mr.Suresh Kumar submits that the Assessee is aggrieved by the finding rendered by the Tribunal, namely, of six years limitation for invoking the provision. The Assessee is contending that it should not be six years, but four years. On the other hand, the Revenue contends that there cannot be any outer limit for exercise of powers. Mr.Suresh Kumar submits that the finding rendered by the Tribunal amounts to providing for limitation and in the absence of any legal provision the Tribunal could not have fixed the time limit. Consequently, the Appeal deserves to be admitted. 12 On the other hand, Mr.J.D.Mistry, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Assessee, submits that this Appeal has nothing in common to one which has been filed by the Assessee, namely, Income Tax Appeal No.1968/2009. He submits that the argument, that there should not be any limitation or restriction on exercise of powers, is an extreme one. The Assessee's Appeal is in relation

to the finding on the point of time. The Tribunal has held that six years would be reasonable time within which the power can be exercised whereas the Assessee submits that it should not be six years, but shorter. Such an issue or question cannot be equated with the controversy raised by the Revenue, namely, that there should be no period of limitation at all. 13 Even otherwise, according to Mr.Mistry, the Tribunal has applied a settled principle of law. That has been applied in series of judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court and other High Courts. That principle is that when a statute is silent on the period or time for invoking any provision or exercising any power, then, what is required to be read in it is the principle or doctrine of reasonable time. Mr.Mistry submits that what would be the reasonable time depends on the facts and circumstances in each case. All that the Tribunal has held is that there is a reasonable time for invocation and exercise of the powers. That finding is in no way vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of record or perversity. This Appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 14 After perusing the memo of Appeal and annexures thereto including the impugned order we are of the view that this Appeal can be said to be raising essentially only two grounds which read as under: (1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in prescribing the time limit for initiation and completion of proceedings under sub sections (1) and (1A) of Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the absence of any time limit provided under the said Act? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in prescribing the time limit statutorily provided for initiation and completion of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purposes of subsections (1) and (1A) of Section 201 of the said Act? 15 Upon perusal of the order impugned in this Appeal we are inclined to agree with Mr.Mistry. The bare and essential facts have already been noted by us above. The order of the Assessing Officer passed under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) dated 30.03.1999 treated the Assessee in default for non deduction of tax as per the provisions of Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from the payment made to the lead managers and its

associates in connection with the services rendered by them for Euro issues. The Assessee filed two Appeals and which were partly allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 01.03.2000. That is how the matter was carried to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 16 True it is that the Tribunal relied upon the order passed in the case of Raymond Limited v/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2003) 86 ITD 791 (Bom.), copy of which is at AnnexureF to the memo of Appeal. Further, the Income Tax Appeal No.246/2004 has been admitted by this Court on 31.01.2005 against the order passed in the case of Raymond Limited (supra) by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 24.04.2002. However, we do not find that the extreme stand of the Revenue and taken before us has any connection with the controversy raised in the Income Tax Appeal No.246/2004 in case of Raymond Limited or the pending Appeal of the Assessee before us. 17 In relation to the argument that was canvassed before us by Mr.Suresh Kumar we find that the Tribunal may have rendered several findings, but if the finding on the point of limitation can be sustained and the Appeal could be disposed of only on that ground, then, on merits we would not be required to go into the correctness of the findings rendered by the Tribunal. In other words, if we are satisfied with the conclusions of the Tribunal on the point of limitation, then, all the contentions of both sides on merits can be kept open for being decided in an appropriate case. We clarify accordingly. 18 In paragraph 12.1 of the order the Tribunal considered the question as to whether the order under Section 195 r/w Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is barred by limitation within four years from the end of the relevant financial year in the absence of any express provision in the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that the Authority must have firstly jurisdiction and on that assumption an inquiry can be held on the point of limitation. In the present case the Tribunal found that unless and until the Authority had jurisdiction the question of limitation for passing an order does not arise. That question is subsequent to the aspect of jurisdiction. If the Assessing Officer has jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 201(1) only, then, it can be decided whether such an order passed is within the period of

limitation or not. If there is no lawful jurisdiction for proceeding under Section 201(1), there cannot be any question of examining the limitation. The Tribunal proceeded on the footing that there is certain liability to deduct tax at source on the payments made to non residents and the Assessee has failed to discharge his duty. Thereafter, the Tribunal examined as to whether Section 201(1) applies to the case of non deduction of tax at source and concluded that there is no substance in the contentions of the Assessee's representative. It held that Section 201 refers to not only the person deducting and failing to deposit tax with the Government, but also encompasses the person failing to deduct tax at source. We do not bother ourselves with this conclusion and for dealing with the only contention raised before us. 19 From paragraph 14.1 onwards of the order under challenge the Tribunal dealt with the issue as to whether any time limit can be prescribed for passing of the order under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In relation to that the Tribunal considered the contentions of the Revenue that the Legislature in its wisdom had chosen not to prescribe any time limit for passing an order under Section 201(1) or 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that the Court or Tribunal should not attempt to lay down any particular time limit as that would amount to placing undue restriction on exercise of power which is legitimately conferred and by law. In relation to that the Tribunal referred to the judgments relied upon by the Revenue. 20 The Tribunal then noted the argument of the Assessee that where no time limit is prescribed for exercise of power under a particular section of the statute, then, it should be exercised within a reasonable time. 21 After referring to the provisions extensively from paragraph 14.2 onwards, the Tribunal analyzed them. The Tribunal then considered the judgments relied upon. It held in paragraph 14.4 as under:

“14.4 If we look at the scheme of section 201(1) it is found that a duty has been cast upon the person responsible to make deduction of tax at source from any payment made on which tax is deductible. The failure to deduct or payment after deduction enables the authorities to treat him as assessee in default. This

deduction of tax at source is only one mode of recovery. The deductee always remains responsible for the payment of tax on the amount which is paid to him with or without deduction of tax at source. Hence we do not find any match between the facts of the case of Hindustan Times Limited (supra) and others on similar lines, relied upon by the learned D.R. visavis the facts under consideration. On the contrary so many authorities have been cited on behalf of the Assessee, some of which have been referred to above in which it has been categorically held that the statutory power should be exercised within a reasonable time even if no time limit is prescribed. The same opinion has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohamad Kavi Mahamad Amin Vs. Fatmabai Ibrahim [(1997) 6 SCC 71]. In view of the foregoing discussion we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the contention of the learned D.R. that in the absence of time limit specified u/s 201, action can be taken at any point of time. It is naturally so for the reason that time is the core of every action under law. If the legislature is silent in prescribing a particular time limit then the action can be taken within a reasonable time. The Ld. D.R., during the course of subsequent arguments, was fair enough to concede that the time limit may be specified, but requested that it should not be kept rigid at four years as has been held in the case of Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO [(1996) 57 ITD 536 (Bom.)]. Now the next question is that what can be the reasonable period for action u/s 201(1). There cannot be a particular time limit say two years or five years or ten years, which can be described as reasonable for all the actions under the Act, when no time limit is prescribed. The reasonable time for taking action under a particular section largely depends on host of factors, inter alia, the nature of proceedings, the character of the order etc.. In order to determine the reasonable time for taking action u/s 201, it is important to have a look at such necessary factors.” 22 Thereafter, the Tribunal dealt with the nature of the proceedings under Section 201(1) and type of the order under Section 201(1). The Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court [reported in (2001) 252 ITR 772 (SC) ITO Vs. Delhi Development Authority] approving the view of the Honourable Delhi High Court that the order under Section 201(1) is an order of assessment.

23 The Tribunal then dealt with what would be the reasonable time for passing an order under Section 201(1). The discussion in relation thereto is to be found in paragraph 17.1 onwards of the order under challenge. After referring to the rival contentions the Tribunal concluded in paragraphs 17.9 and 17.10 as under:

“17.9 Section 201(1) declares that where the person responsible for paying any sum chargeable to tax under the provisions of this Act fails to deduct or after deducting fails to pay the tax as per the provisions of this Act, he shall be deemed to be an Assessee in default in respect of the tax. Further the Explanation to section 191, which will be discussed infra has direct impact on the liability of the person liable to deduct but failing to deduct or failing to pay after deduction of tax at source. On going through the Explanation to section 191 in juxtaposition to section 201(1) it is divulged that the person responsible for deducting or failing to pay tax deducted at source is to be deemed to be an Assessee in default only if the payee of income has also failed to pay such tax directly. From the detailed discussion under the succeeding main head, we will also notice that where the payee is not liable to pay tax on the amount of income received by him without deduction of tax at source, then also the person responsible cannot be treated as assessee in default. To sum up the liability of the person responsible is dependent upon the deductee failing or otherwise to pay such tax directly. Thus the action u/s 201(1) is dependent on the outcome of the assessment of the payee and the time limit for passing order u/s 201(1) has to be viewed in the light of the fate of the assessment in the hands of the recipient. Logically the person responsible for paying sum chargeable to tax can be treated as assessee in default at any time prior to the assessment of the payee or the time available for the making of the assessment of the payee. If the persons responsible is deemed to be an assessee in default after the assessment of the payee or the time available for making assessment has expired then such amount of tax will be incapable of adjustment against tax liability of the payee and would require return to such person who has been treated as assessee in default. Thus both the initiation of proceedings u/s 201(1) as well as the completion of such proceedings by passing order have to be prior to the time limit within which the tax can be determined in the hands of the payee.

It cannot be beyond such period. There may be different situations in the assessment of the payee. If the payee has included the amount received from payer in his total income but the tax has not been paid in full or part then the payer can be treated as assessee in default to the extent of the non payment of tax on the sum paid to him provided the tax is not recovered from the payee. If the payee has furnished the return of income without disclosing the sum paid by the payer on which tax was deductible as per the provisions of the Act then the tax deductible at source can be recovered from the payer by treating him as assessee in default if the income has not been assessed in the hands of the payee. Still in another situation where the payee has not at all filed his return of income again the person responsible can be treated as assessee in default in respect of the tax on the sum paid by him in violation of the provisions of this Chapter. With this discussion there remains no difficulty in answering the question that how much time is available with the Revenue for treating the payer as assessee in default u/s 201(1). The obvious answer is that the maximum time limit available for assessment of the payee is the maximum time limit within which the payer can be treated as assessee in default. With the expansion of the scope of section 147, also roping in the cases of aassessment apart from reassessment, it is clear that the assessment of payee shall also include assessment made under 147. Thus, the maximum time limit for initiating and completing the proceedings u/s 201(1) has to be at par with the time limit available for initiating and completing the reassessment.

17.10 Proviso to section 143(3) states that no notice under clause (ii) shall be served on the assessee after expiry of 12 months from the end of the month in which the return is furnished. The time limit for completion of assessment u/s 143 or 144 has been prescribed u/s 153(1) as two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable. The time limit for notice of assessment or reassessment u/s 147 has been prescribed u/s 149. This section, in turn, provides that no notice u/s 147 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the case falls under clause (b). Clause (b) further states that no notice u/s 147 shall be issued if four years but not more than six

years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupee or more for that year. The present twofold time limit for issuing notice u/s 149 has clear cut demarcation of its applicability in one situation or the other. Where the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment, by reason or underassessment or no assessment, amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year then the extended period of six years is available but if the amount of such income is less than Rs.1 lakh then the shorter period of four years is provided for. Section 153(2) deals with the time limit for the completion of assessment, reassessment or recomputation u/s 147. It provides that “no order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation shall be made u/s 147 after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which notice u/s 148 was served”. As we have held above that the order u/s 201(1) is akin to assessment and further the assessment includes reassessment, naturally the reasonable time limits for initiation and completion of action u/s 201(1) have to be similar to those available for assessment u/s 147. Accordingly, we hold that proceedings u/s 201(1) can be initiated in the extended period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year if the income by virtue of sum paid without deduction of tax at source by the payer chargeable to tax in the hands of the payee is equal to or more than one lakh rupee. If on the other hand such amount is less than Rs.1 lakh then the lower period of four years as prescribed u/s 149(1) (a) from the end of the relevant assessment year is available for initiation of proceedings u/s 201(1). Going by the same logic and taking assistance from section 153(2), the completion of proceedings u/s 201(1), that is the passing of the order under this subsection, has to be within one year from the end of the financial year in which proceedings u/s 201(1) were initiated. Same time limits for initiation and passing of orders will be valid for the passing of order u/s 201(1A) also. We hold accordingly.” 24 Thereafter, from paragraph 17.11 the Tribunal dealt with the contentions of the Assessee that the time limit for initiation and completion of the proceedings under Section 201(1) ought to be the period of four years. The cases relied upon have been referred to and in paragraph 17.14 it is held that the order

passed under Section 195 r/w 201(1) or 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be held as barred by limitation if it is not passed within four years from the end of the relevant financial year. With the correctness of this finding we are not concerned in this Appeal. Equally we are not concerned with the findings on the point of jurisdiction or liability under Section 201 in the present case. 25 We are only concerned with the correctness of the finding of the Tribunal, namely, reasonable time. 26 Mr.Mistry, learned Senior Counsel has placed before us the compilation of judgments essentially of the Honourable Supreme Court and which are followed by some of the High Courts. In the case of State of Gujarat v/s Patel Raghav Natha and others reported in AIR 1969 SC 1297 the Honourable Supreme Court held as under: “11. The question arises whether the Commissioner can revise an order made under Section 65 at any time. It is true that there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 211, but it seems to us plain that this power must be exercised in reasonable time and the length of the reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the order which is being revised.” 27 In the case of the State of Punjab and others v/s Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union limited reported in (2007) 11 applied it to even tax law. The Honourable Supreme Court in the context of revisional powers conferred by the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 enabling reopening of the assessment, followed the principle aforequoted and held as under: “17. A bare reading of Section 21 of the Act would reveal that although no period of limitation has been prescribed therefor, the same would not mean that the suo motu power can be exercised at any time. 18. It is trite that if no period of limitation has been prescribed, statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What, however, shall be the reasonable period would depend upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors.”

28 Then, again in the case of Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and others v/s Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and others reported in (2009) 9 SCC 352, the Honourable Supreme Court followed the ratio in the judgments of Patel Raghav Natha (supra) and the State of Punjab v/s Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union (supra) and reiterated the principle as referred above. 29 The same view appears to have been taken earlier also in the case of the Government of India v/s Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals and others reported in 1990 (Vol.184) ITR 467 (SC). 30 Our attention has also been invited to two judgments of the Honourable Delhi High Court which are on the same principle and as to whether in the absence of any time limit the proceedings under Sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 could be initiated at any Income Tax v/s NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation reported in (2008) 305 ITR 137 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court upheld the view of the Tribunal and dismissed the Revenue's Appeal [Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Hutchison Essar Telecome Ltd. reported in (2010) 323 ITR 230 (Delhi)]. 31 In the case of NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (supra), the Honourable Mr. Justice Madan b. Lokur (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench answered the question directly posed before us in the following terms: “There is no dispute that Section 201 of the Act does not prescribe any limitation period for the assessee being declared as an assessee in default. Learned Counsel for the Revenue relied upon Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1988) 70 STC 122 (SC) to contend that no period of limitation can be prescribed in a situation such as the present for initiating proceedings. Learned counsel for the assessee relied upon State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2007] 11 SCC 363 : [2007] 9 RC 637 to contend that if no period of limitation is prescribed, a statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable period. What should be the

reasonable period depends upon the nature of the statute, rights and liabilities thereunder and other relevant factors. Relying upon this decision, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the assessee that since Section 201 of the Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for initiating or for completing proceedings in declaring the assessee as an assessee in default, exercise of jurisdiction should commence insofar as the statutory authority is concerned within a reasonable period of time. We are unable to agree with learned Counsel for the Revenue inasmuch as the decision relied upon by him deals with reasonable time for completing the assessment or for completing the task on hand. In Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. (1988) 70 STC 122 (SC) the question that arose before the Court (and which has been stated on page 130 of the report) is whether an order of assessment under Section 11(3) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 or Section 28(3) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 could now be completed or it would be barred by limitation. In that case, the assessment proceedings had been unduly delayed and the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that for completing the assessment proceedings there is no period of limitation prescribed and that would depend upon the facts of each case. Considering the facts of the case, the Supreme Court gave a direction to the assessing authority to complete all the pending assessments within a period of four months from the date of delivery of the judgment. Insofar as Bhatinda District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2007] 9 RC 637 : 11 SCC 363 is concerned, the question that arose before the Supreme Court was regarding initiation of proceedings by exercise of jurisdiction by the statutory authority. The Supreme Court held that exercise of jurisdiction must be within a reasonable period of time and considering the provisions of the Punjab General SalesTax Act, 1948, it was held that a reasonable period of time for initiating proceedings would be five years. There is a qualitative difference between Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. [1988] 70 STC 122 (SC) and Bhatinda District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2007) 9 RC 637 : 11 SCC 363. In the former case, the question pertained to completion of proceedings,

while in the latter case is pertained to initiation of proceedings. We are concerned with initiation of proceedings. Insofar as the IncomeTax Act is concerned, our attention has been drawn to Section 153(1)(a) thereof which prescribes the timelimit for completing the assessment, which is two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable. It is well known that the assessment year follows the previous year and, therefore, the timelimit would be three years from the end of the financial year. This seems to be a reasonable period as accepted under Section 153 of the Act, though for completion of assessment proceedings. The provisions of reassessment are under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act and they are on a completely different footing and, therefore, do not merit consideration for the purposes of this case. Even though the period of three years would be a reasonable period as prescribed by Section 153 of the Act for completion of proceedings, we have been told that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has, in a series of decisions, some of which have been mentioned in the order which is under challenge before us, taken the view that four years would be a reasonable period of time for initiating action, in a case where no limitation is prescribed. The rationale for this seems to be quite clear if there is a time limit for completing the assessment, then the time limit for initiating the proceedings must be the same, if not less. Nevertheless, the Tribunal has given a greater period for commencement or initiation of proceedings.” 32 Mr.Suresh Kumar submitted before us that the Delhi High Court judgment does not take note of the principle that when there is no limitation prescribed by the statute, the Court cannot read into the provision any time limit or restriction. In that regard he relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ajaib Singh v/s Sirhind Cooperative Marketing Cum Processing Service Society Limited and another reported in (1999) 6 SCC 82. The issue before the Honourable Supreme Court in that case was whether there is any period of limitation prescribed for initiation of proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In that regard the Honourable Supreme Court noted the factual position, namely,

that services of workman were terminated on 16.07.1974. He had issued the notice of demand only on 18.12.1981. However, it was not disputed that no plea regarding delay was raised by the Management before the Labour Court. It was also acknowledged that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has not been specifically made applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking reference of Industrial Disputes to the Labour Court. Therefore, neither this provision nor any principle incorporated therein is applicable to the proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that is how the Honourable Supreme Court proceeded to analyze the ambit and scope of the proceedings under the special provision, namely, a Reference by the concerned workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court deals with a case where any provision in the nature of limitation or outer limit is prescribed for reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Honourable Supreme Court was not dealing with a case of exercise of powers enabling reopening of Assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or any Taxing Statute. In fact, it was not deciding a case concerned with invoking of any suomotu powers or reopening of assessment finalized under the Tax Law. Therefore, this judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts. 33 If one carefully peruses Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, then, the principle laid down in the Delhi High Court decisions in NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation and Hutchison Essar Telecom (supra) would squarely apply. 34 The Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 reads as under: “201. Consequences of failure to deduct or pay: (1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company, – (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act; or (b) referred to in subsection (1A) of section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does not pay, or after so deducting fails to pay, the whole or any part of the tax, as

required by or under this Act, then, such person, shall, without prejudice to any other consequences which he may incur, be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax: [Provided that any person, including the principal officer of a company, who fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter on the sum paid to a resident or on the sum credited to the account of a resident shall not be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax if such resident – (i) has furnished his return of income under section 139; (ii) has taken into account such sum for computing income in such return of income; and (iii) has paid the tax due on the income declared by him in such return of income, and the person furnishes a certificate to this effect from an accountant in such form as may be prescribed:] [Provided further that] no penalty shall be charged under section 221 from such person, unless the Assessing Officer is satisfied that such person, without good and sufficient reasons, has failed to deduct and pay such tax.] [(1A) Without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (1), if any such person, principal officer or company as is referred to in that subsection does not deduct the whole or any part of the tax or after deducting fails to pay the tax as required by or under this Act, he or it shall be liable to pay simple interest, – (i) at one per cent. for every month or part of a month on the amount of such tax from the date on which such tax was deductible to the date on which such tax is deducted; and (ii) at one and onehalf per cent. for every month or part of a month on the amount of such tax from the date on which such tax was deducted to the date on which such tax is actually paid,

and such interest shall be paid before furnishing the statement in accordance with the provisions of sub section (3) of section 200:] [Provided that in case any person, including the principal officer of a company fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter on the sum

paid to a resident or on the sum credited to the account of a resident but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to subsection (1), the interest under clause (i) shall be payable from the date on which such tax was deductible to the date of furnishing of return of income by such resident.] (2) Where the tax has not been paid as aforesaid after it is deducted, the amount of the tax together with the amount of simple interest thereon referred to in sub section (1A) shall be a charge upon all the assets of the person, or the company, as the case may be, referred to in subsection (1). [(3) No order shall be made under subsection (1) deeming a person to be an assessee in default for failure to deduct the whole or any part of the tax from a person resident in India, at any time after the expiry of – (i) two years from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed in a case where the statement referred to in section 200 has been filed; (ii) [six years] from the end of the financial year in which payment is made or credit is given, in any other case: Provided that such order for a financial year commencing on or before the 1st day of April, 2007 may be passed at any time on or before the 31st day of March, 2011. (4) The provisions of subclause (ii) of subsection (3) of section 153 and of Explanation 1 to section 153 shall, so far as may, apply to the time limit prescribed in subsection (3).] [Explanation.For the purposes of this section, the expression "accountant" shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Explanation to subsection (2) of section 288.]” 35 Once same provisions are invoked in the present case, then, the Honourable Delhi High Court, with respect, rightly concluded that though Section 201 does not prescribe any limitation period for the Assessee being declared as an Assessee in Default yet the Revenue will have to exercise the powers in that regard within a reasonable time. In such circumstances we are of the view that the Tribunal's order in this case does not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of record or perversity warranting our interference in appellate jurisdiction.

36 We are also shown the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Bhura Exports Ltd. v/s Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ward 57(2) in G.A. No.1319 and ITAT No.118 and IT Appeal No.116/2011 and IT 1163/2011 decided on 30.08.2011. With respect and for the reasons indicated by us above we cannot agree with the view taken by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. That decision overlooks the fundamental principles noted above. They need not be reiterated here. 37. However, we clarify that our order shall not have any impact on the Appeal which has been filed by the Assessee in this Court and which is stated to be pending. Our judgment and order shall not be construed as expression of any opinion as to what should be the reasonable time. In other words, whether it should be as indicated in the Delhi High Court Judgments or otherwise is an aspect which is kept open. Equally, once we uphold the view of the Tribunal on the point of limitation, then, we must also clarify that we have expressed no opinion on merits of the impugned deductions/ claims in that regard. Therefore, we do not express any opinion on the rival contentions particularly as to whether there is any liability in terms of Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the present case. 38. As a result of the above discussion we are of the view that the present Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. It is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.” 2.4. We note that while coming to a particular conclusion, after considering various judicial pronouncement concluded as under:- “Even though section 201 does not prescribe any limitation period for Assessee being declared as an Assessee in Default, yet Revenue is required to exercise the powers in that regard within a reasonable time, and thus tribunal was justified in prescribing time limit statutorily provided for initiation and completion of reassessment proceedings under Section 147 for purposes of subsections (1) and (1A) of Section 201.” This is exactly the issue before us. The Hon'ble Court also considered that no time limit has been specified in the Act but

still the order must be passed within a reasonable time and thus passing of order has to be within one year from the end of the Financial Year in which proceedings u/s 201(1) were initiated. It was further held that same time limit will be applicable for passing of order u/s 201(1A) of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court affirmed the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs DCIT (2009) 313 ITR (AT) 263 (Mum.)(SB). The Hon'ble High Court has made an elaborate discussion on the issue and after considering various decisions including from various High Courts and Hon'ble Apex Courts, reached to a particular conclusion. In view of the foregoing discussion and the decision from Hon'ble High Court, we are of the view that statutory powers should be exercised within a reasonable time even if no time limit is prescribed. Finality of the issue is the underlying principle embedded and is the core of every action under the law. If the legislature is silent in prescribing a particular time limit, then the action can only be taken within a reasonable time. The Special Bench of the Tribunal relied upon the decision from Hon'ble Apex Court in Income Tax Officer vs Delhi Development Authority reported in (2001) 252 ITR 772 (SC) approving the view of Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the order u/s 201(1) is an order of assessment. The ratio laid down in GOI vs Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals (1990) 184 ITR 467 (SC), Delhi High Court in CIT vs NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (2008) 305 ITR 137 (Del.) supports our view. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2007) 11 SCC 363 on a question, which arose from the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding initiation of proceedings by exercise of jurisdiction by the statutory authority held that it must be within a reasonable period of time. 2.5. So far as, the decision of Hindustan Times Ltd., AIR 1998 SC 688, relied upon by the ld. DR, is concerned, we find that the Hon'ble High Court has already commented upon the decision and the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra in para 14.4 has already discussed this case including the case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin vs Fatmabai Ibrahim (1997) 6 SCC 71, therefore, the objection of the ld. DR had already been met with by the Special Bench as well as by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. To sum up the matter, we find

that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that proceedings initiated u/s 201(1)/201(1A) should be completed within one year from the end of the Financial Year in which proceedings u/s 201(1)/201(1A) were initiated. Admittedly, in the appeals before us, the Assessing Officer passed the orders after expiry of eight years from the date of issuance of notice, therefore, the order passed by the are barred by limitation. Consequently, we set aside the orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as the orders passed by the Assessing Officer are barred by limitation. All these appeals of the assessee, are, therefore, allowed. Finally, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed. 5. In the case in ITA No. 5190/Mum/2014 dated 15.2.2017, relevant finding has been given in para 4, which is reproduced below :-

“4. Firstly the assessee raised the legal issues to the fact that the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice dated 23.09.2003 and 24.09.2004 u/s.201(1A) of the Act and thereafter, the order was passed u/s.201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act on 28.03.2011 which is wrong because the order u/s.201(1) of the Act was required to be passed within one year from the end of the financial year in which proceeding u/s.201(1) of the Act was initiated and also placed reliance upon the law settled by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. [2014] 365 ITR 560, and the case decided by Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai bench in ITA Nos.3512 to ITA No.5190.M.14 A.Y. 2003-04 3514/Mum/2004 for A.Y.2002-03 to 2004-05 in case of Hatway Cable and Datacom Limited (Formerly known as Hathway Cable and Datacom Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. The Tax Recovery Officer (TDS.) in assessee's own case dated 07.09.2016. On the other hand, learned representative of the department has refuted the said contentions. By giving careful thoughts of the argument advanced by the Ld representative of the parties and perusing the record carefully, it came into the notice that the Assessing Officer issued the show cause notice dated 23.09.2003 and 24.09.2004 u/s.201(1A) of the Act and subsequently the order was passed on 28.03.2011. It is to be seen whether it is mandatory on the part of the Assessing Officer to pass the order

within one year from the end of the financial year for initiating the proceeding u/s.201(1) of the Act. This question has been answered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case titled as Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. [2014] 365 ITR 560, and by the case decided by Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai bench in ITA Nos.3512 to 3514/Mum/2004 for A.Y.2002-03 to 2004-05 in case of Hatway Cable and Datacom Limited (Formerly known as Hathway Cable and Datacom Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. The Tax Recovery Officer (TDS.) passed in assessee's own case dated 07.09.2016. It is specifically held that after issuance of notice the order should probably passed within one year and the proceeding was held to be time barred. The facts is not in dispute wherein the notice has been issued on 24.09.2003 u/s.201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Act and thereafter the order was passed u/s.201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Act on 28.03.2011 after the expiry of more than seven years . In view of the said circumstances and in view of the above mentioned law, we are of the view ITA No.5190.M.14 A.Y. 2003- 04 that the CIT(A) has decided this issue wrongly and illegally which is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law. Since the order passed after the expiry of limitation period, therefore, the same is hereby ordered to be set aside and accordingly appeal of the assessee is hereby accepted.” Since the matter of controversy has been adjudicated on the basis of legal issues therefore the other issues are not required to be adjudicated being the same would be in academic in nature. 6. In ITA no. 1810/Mum/2014 dated 1.6.2016, the Tribunal has given findings in para No. 6 to 8, which are given below :- 6. The Ld A.R relied on the decision rendered by the jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in the case of DIT Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd (2014)(365 ITR 560). The above said decision has been rendered by the Hon’ble High Court on the appeal filed by the revenue challenging the decision rendered by the Special bench. The Special bench of Tribunal had rendered its decision on the issue of limitation period as under:-

(a) The proceedings u/s 201(1) can be initiated in the extended period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year if the income by virtue of sum paid without deduction of tax at source by the payer chargeable to tax in the hands of the payee is equal to or more than one lakh rupees. If on the other had such amount is less than Rs.1 lakh, then the lower period of four years as prescribed u/s 149(1)(a) from the end of the relevant assessment year available for initiation of proceedings u/s 201(1). (b) The completion of proceedings u/s 201(1), that is the passing of the order under this sub-section, has to be within one year from the end of the financial year in which proceedings u/s 201(1) were initiated. The same time limits for initiation and passing of orders will be valid for the passing of order under section 201(1A) also. 7. The assessee challenged the first part of the decision (para (a)) and the Revenue challenged the second part of the decision (para(b)) supra. The Hon’ble High Court disposed of the appeal filed by the revenue by upholding the view taken by the Tribunal in para (b) supra with regard to the time limit for completion of the proceedings. It was stated that the appeal filed by the assessee is still pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. 8. Thus, we notice that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that the proceedings initiated u/s 201(1)/201(1A) should be completed within one year from the end of the financial year in which proceedings u/s 201(1)/201(1A) were initiated. Admittedly, in the instant case, the assessing officer has passed the orders after expiry of eight years from the date of issuing of notice. Accordingly, the order passed by the AO is barred by limitation. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A), since the order passed by the AO is barred by limitation. Accordingly the same stands quashed.

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Senior Private Secretary) PS ITAT, Mumbai