WUNDERMAN INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) 3(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4675/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 January 2016AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by not deciding the assessee's ground regarding the time-barred nature of the Section 201 order. The matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication of this specific ground.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, raising a specific ground challenging the validity of an order passed under Section 201 due to being time-barred. The CIT(A) failed to adjudicate this ground.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated all grounds of appeal, specifically the ground challenging the validity of a Section 201 order due to being passed beyond the statutory time limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201,Section 201(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain
For Respondent: Shri Nitin Waghmode

Instant appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 6th May 2014, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–8, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2007–08.

The solitary ground raised by the assessee reads as under:–

“The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating ground no.1, challenging the validity of order passed under section 201 on the Wunderman India Pvt. Ltd. 2 ground that the order has been passed beyond the statutory time limit.”

2.

As could be seen from the ground raised, the limited grievance of the assessee is non–consideration / non–disposal of assessee’s ground on the validity of the order passed beyond statutory time limit.

3.

We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. It is evident from the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) as well as ground of appeal raised before the first appellate authority that the assessee had raised a specific ground being ground no.I, challenging the validity of order passed under section 201 on the ground that it has been passed beyond the statutory period prescribed under section 201(3). Further, in the written submission filed during the course of hearing of appeal which has been reproduced in Para–1.2 of the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), assessee has specifically submitted on the issue of limitation. However, while disposing of the appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to decide the issue of limitation raised by the assessee in ground no.1. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter back to his file for deciding ground no.1, raised by the assessee on the issue of limitation.

Wunderman India Pvt. Ltd. 3 4. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29.01.2016

More judgments on Section 201

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →