State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd.

11 SCC 363Reported decision2007#717 most cited

What is State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd. authority for?

Statutory authorities must exercise their suo motu or revisional powers within a reasonable period, even if the governing statute does not prescribe a specific limitation period. What constitutes a 'reasonable period' depends on the nature of the statute, the rights and liabilities involved, and other relevant factors.

140

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd. · 11 SCC 363 · reasonable period for statutory power · no limitation period prescribed · suo motu power exercise · revisional jurisdiction reasonable time · Income Tax Act sections 153 · 144C · 263 · statutory authority time limit · delay in exercising jurisdiction

Sections most often in play

Section 144C(13)Section 153(4)Section 153(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 144BSection 144CSection 153(2A)

Issues it is cited on

section 144cofsection 158absection 261section 11(3)section 153(4)impermissible avoidance arrangementsection 144c(4)section 22(1)reference to tpostay of demandsection 141section 153(1)

Judgments citing State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd.

M/S. Green Line (Delhi), New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in Green Line Earth Ltd

ITA 1103/DEL/2016[2003-04 (F.Y. 2002-03)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2002-03 Green Line (Punjab), Vs Ito (Tds), I-25, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, Ward-50(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadfg5282H Assessment Year: 2002-03 Green Line (Delhi), Vs. Ito (Tds), I-25, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, Ward-50(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaps6803P Assessment Year: 2003-04 Green Line Earth Ltd., Vs. Ito (Tds), I-25, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, Ward-50(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacg6500C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Manjani, Advocate & Shri Tarun Aswani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.S. Minhas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.S. Minhas, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…Court then held as under: "21. We are not inclined to disturb the time limit of four years prescribed by the Tribunal and are of the view that in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhatinda District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2007] 9 RC 637; 11 SCC 363 action must be initiated by the competent authority under the Income Tax Act, where no limitation is prescribed as in Section 201 of the Act within that period of four years." 16. This question, after the amendment to Section 201 of the Act brought about by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1st April, 2010 came up for consideration by…

M/S. Green Line (Punjab), New Delhi vs. ITO (TDS), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in Green Line Earth Ltd

ITA 1102/DEL/2016[2002-03 (F.Y. 2001-02)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2002-03 Green Line (Punjab), Vs Ito (Tds), I-25, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, Ward-50(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadfg5282H Assessment Year: 2002-03 Green Line (Delhi), Vs. Ito (Tds), I-25, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, Ward-50(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaps6803P Assessment Year: 2003-04 Green Line Earth Ltd., Vs. Ito (Tds), I-25, Lajpat Nagar-Iii, Ward-50(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaacg6500C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.R. Manjani, Advocate & Shri Tarun Aswani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri J.S. Minhas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.S. Minhas, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 194CSection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…Court then held as under: "21. We are not inclined to disturb the time limit of four years prescribed by the Tribunal and are of the view that in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhatinda District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2007] 9 RC 637; 11 SCC 363 action must be initiated by the competent authority under the Income Tax Act, where no limitation is prescribed as in Section 201 of the Act within that period of four years." 16. This question, after the amendment to Section 201 of the Act brought about by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 with effect from 1st April, 2010 came up for consideration by…

Sh. Swapnil Agarwal, 1, Agarwal Dharam Kanta, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer vs. ITO(TDS), Ajmer

ITA 160/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 201(1)Section 271CSection 274

…not provide any time limitation for issue of notice, such notice should be issued within a reasonable time. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab Vs. 8 Sh. Swapnil Agarwal vs. ITO Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Limited (2007) 11 SCC 363 at para 17 & 18 of its order held as under:- 17. 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. 1…

Srinivas Rudrappa, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Ward-3(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 703/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv C Nulvi, C.A : Smt. Priyadarshini
Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…s no limitation period u/s 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for initiating proceedings for failure to deduct the tax at source. It means until then as per Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs Bhatinda Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd (2007) 11 SCC 363 held that "action must be initiated by the competent authority under the Act that there is specified limitation period is prescribed then it should be initiated within four years period from the end of the financial year and not later than that." The Finance Act, 2009 subsection (3) of 201(l) was inserted It was only by the Finance Act, 2009 that…

Srinivas Rudrappa, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Ward-3(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 702/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv C Nulvi, C.A : Smt. Priyadarshini
Section 133ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…s no limitation period u/s 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for initiating proceedings for failure to deduct the tax at source. It means until then as per Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs Bhatinda Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd (2007) 11 SCC 363 held that "action must be initiated by the competent authority under the Act that there is specified limitation period is prescribed then it should be initiated within four years period from the end of the financial year and not later than that." The Finance Act, 2009 subsection (3) of 201(l) was inserted It was only by the Finance Act, 2009 that…

The Commissioner of vs. M/S United Spirits Ltd

Appeal is allowed

ITA/366/2017HC Karnataka26 Aug 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

Section 153Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 260

…holding that Section 153(2)A of the Act was applicable to the case on hand has quashed the orders passed by the Assessing Authority under Section 201 and 201(1A) of the Act as time barred. 6 (2007)11 SCC 363 (paras 17 to 19) 7(2015) 64 Taxmann.com 325 (Kar) (paras 14 & 15) I.T.A No. 366/2017 7 9. In Jodhana Real Estate, the orders under consideration were passed under Section 143(3) and Section 104 of the Act…

The Commissioner of vs. M/S United Spirits Ltd

Appeal is allowed

ITA/360/2017HC Karnataka26 Aug 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

Section 153Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 260

…holding that Section 153(2)A of the Act was applicable to the case on hand has quashed the orders passed by the Assessing Authority under Section 201 and 201(1A) of the Act as time barred. 6 (2007)11 SCC 363 (paras 17 to 19) 7(2015) 64 Taxmann.com 325 (Kar) (paras 14 & 15) I.T.A No.360/2017 7 9. In Jodhana Real Estate, the orders under consideration were passed under Sectio…

The Commissioner of vs. M/S United Spirits Ltd

Appeal is allowed

ITA/359/2017HC Karnataka26 Aug 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,M G UMA

Section 153Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 260

…holding that Section 153(2)A of the Act was applicable to the case on hand has quashed the orders passed by the Assessing Authority under Section 201 and 201(1A) of the Act as time barred. 6 (2007)11 SCC 363 (paras 17 to 19) 7(2015) 64 Taxmann.com 325 (Kar) (paras 14 & 15) I.T.A No.359/2017 7 9. In Jodhana Real Estate, the orders under consideration we…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Intl Taxn) Circle-1(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Coffeeday Enterprises Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2931/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzzaffar Hussain, CIT (D.R)
Section 195

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2931/Bang/2018 & C.O. No. 42/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Intl. Taxn., Circle-1(1), Bengaluru PAN AAACT 5435F ….Appellant Vs. M/s. Coffeeday Enterprises Ltd., No.23/2, Coffeeday Square, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560 001. PAN: ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri C. Ramesh, CA Revenue By: Shri Muzzaffar Hussain, CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 24.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 16.12.2020. O R D E R PER SHRI CHAND…

The Director of Income Tax vs. The Executive Engineer

ITA/166/2011HC Karnataka24 Aug 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 231Section 260Section 260A

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.166 OF 2011 C/W I.T.A. NO.148 OF 2011 I.T.A. NO.166 OF 2011 BETWEEN: 1. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE. 2. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD1(1) RASHTROTHANA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.,) AND: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.1, CAUVER…

Win Cable & Datacom P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (TDS) 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 3635/MUM/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: S/Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm) I.T.A. No. 3635/Mum/2016(Assessment Year 2001-02)

Section 191Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

…ase, 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 re…

Hathway C Net P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. TRO (TDS) RG 1, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4112/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Hathway C-Net Private The Tax Recovery Officer Limited, Rahejas, 4Th Floor, (Tds)-1 Smt. K.G. Mittal बिधम/ Corners Of Main Avenue & Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg, Vs. V.P. Road, Santa Cruz (West) Charni Road-(West), Mumbai- 400054 Mumbai-400 002 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaach8338K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, D.R
Section 133ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

…) 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 there under and other relevant factors. P a g e | 14 ITA No. 4112/Mum/2016 AY: 2003-04 Hath…

M/S. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cir2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3745/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…ch some courts deny relief to a claimant who has unreasonable delayed or been negligent in asserting a claim etc. In this regard, he also relied on the following decisions: • State of Punjab vs. Bhatinda District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2007) 11 SCC 363 • State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha and others AIR 1960 SCC 1297 • SantoshKumar Shivgonda patil & Ors vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 352 • CIT vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (2008) 305 ITR 137 (Del) • CIT vs. Hutchison Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 320 (Del) Thus, it was submitted by the learned DR that if no tim…

The ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3658/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…ch some courts deny relief to a claimant who has unreasonable delayed or been negligent in asserting a claim etc. In this regard, he also relied on the following decisions: • State of Punjab vs. Bhatinda District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2007) 11 SCC 363 • State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha and others AIR 1960 SCC 1297 • SantoshKumar Shivgonda patil & Ors vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 352 • CIT vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (2008) 305 ITR 137 (Del) • CIT vs. Hutchison Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 320 (Del) Thus, it was submitted by the learned DR that if no tim…

M/S. Tata Sons Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT Cir. 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 193/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…ch some courts deny relief to a claimant who has unreasonable delayed or been negligent in asserting a claim etc. In this regard, he also relied on the following decisions: • State of Punjab vs. Bhatinda District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2007) 11 SCC 363 • State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghav Natha and others AIR 1960 SCC 1297 • SantoshKumar Shivgonda patil & Ors vs. Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Anr. (2009) 9 SCC 352 • CIT vs. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (2008) 305 ITR 137 (Del) • CIT vs. Hutchison Telecom Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 320 (Del) Thus, it was submitted by the learned DR that if no tim…

Hathway C-Net P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Tax Recovery (TDS) 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 4261/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 201Section 201(1)

…) 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 learne…

Hathway Cable & Datacom Ltd, Mumbai vs. TRO (TDS) RG 1, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 3512/MUM/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 201Section 201(1)

…) 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 learn…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Samsung India Electronics (P) Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4853/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Sri G.D. Agarwal, Hon’Blesri C.M.Garg

For Appellant: Sh. Rupesh Jain, CA, Ms. Bhavita Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 153Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SRI G.D. AGARWAL, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT SRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4853/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 ACIT Vs Samsung India Electronics (P) Ltd., 51(1), Golf Course Road, New Delhi Sector-43, Gurgaon (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACS5123K Assessee by : Sh. Rupesh Jain, CA, Ms. Bhavita Kumar, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12.01.2016 Date of Pronouncement :19 .02.2016 ORDER PER C.M.Garg, J.M. This appeal by the Revenue has been filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Catholic Relief Services, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 506/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Sri C.M.Garg, Jm & Sri O.P. Kant, Am Ita No. 506/Del./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03

For Appellant: Dr. Ram Sameyh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…years.” 7.2 Before proceeding further, we may have a look at the decision in NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation (supra) ,where in while relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhatinda District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2007] 9 RC 637; 11 SCC 363. Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held as under: “14. 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. 15. In Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd.’s case (supra) the question that arose before the Court (and which…

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Krosur

ITTA/166/2011HC Telangana21 Apr 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN