News Update

India, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEAThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCBDT substitutes Form in ITR-5EV Revolution: Lessons for India to learn from US and China!London court green-signals auction of luxury apartment of fugitive Nirav ModiGovt consults RBI; finalises borrowing plan for first half of FY 2024-25Gadkari says Farmers’ protest is politically-motivatedVP calls upon women entrepreneurs to be 'Vocal for Local'America offers USD 10 mn bounty for information on ‘Blackcat’ hackers after UnitedHealth gets hitI-T- The order of the ITSC can only be reopened in cases of fraud or misrepresentation: HC8 persons including Hezbollah militants killed in Israeli strike on LebanonI-T - Income so surrendered on account of investment in excess stock during course of survey cannot be brought to tax under deeming provisions of section 69B: ITATMacron pillories EU-South Africa trade deal; calls it ‘really bad’ in BrazilI-T-Power of revision need not be exercised where facts do not reveal any lack of enquiry by AO into relevant issue & when twin requirements of order being erroneous as well as prejudicial to Revenue's interests, are not satisfied: ITATThailand’s Lower House okays Bill to legitimise same-sex marriageI-T -Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed where an assessee claims deduction u/s 80P while being ineligible therefor, but being under the bona fide impression of being eligible for such benefit : ITATYellen warns China against clean energy dumpingCus - Enhancement of declared value of imported goods is not tenable, where Department adduces no material to show how the enhanced value was computed & where no cogent rationale is made out for rejecting declared value: CESTATMilky Way’s central black hole - Twisted magnetic field observedCus - Assessee has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that goods in question imported under air way bills/bills of entry were in fact filed by him and hence the only natural corollary available to Revenue is confiscation of same: CESTATSmall investors help Trump Media’s valuation skyrocket to USD 13 billionST - When the facts are in the knowledge of department subsequent SCN alleging suppression cannot be issued and entire demand was found beyond normal period of limitation: CESTATFM Nirmala Sitharaman declines to contest LS elections as she has no fundsST - Tripura State Rifles not required to pay Service Tax under heading of Security Services, as it is is not engaged in business of providing security services: CESTATJustice Ritu Raj Awasthi joins as Judicial member of LokpalCX - Clandestine removal alleged based on consumption of raw inputs and heightened electricity usage - Tax demands based on third party statements but without permitting cross examination of deponents; case remanded to allow this exercise: CESTAT
 
I-T - Limitation of 7 years as provided by amended Sec 201(3) would not apply retrospectively to returns filed before 2009: HC

By TIOL News Service

ALLAHABAD, APRIL 27, 2017: THE issue before the Bench is - Whether limitation of seven years as provided by amended Section 201(3) of I-T Act would apply retrospectively even to returns filed in Year 2009. NO is the verdict.

Facts of the case:

The assessee had preferred the present petition challenging the notice purported to have been issued u/s 201 (1)/201(1A) of Income Tax Act. The matter related to the A.Y 2009-2010, where the assessee as an employer was required to deduct tax at source and to file quarterly returns. Though the assessee for the 4th quarter of the Financial Year 2008- 2009 submitted the TDS return on June 12, 2009 for the period of Jan 01, 2009 to Mar 31, 2009. In connection with the aforesaid return, the impugned notice had been issued requiring certain information from the assessee.

On appeal, the HC held that,

++ this Court is conscious of the fact that any challenge to the show cause notice is not to be entertained liberally unless it is shown to be without jurisdiction or that the authority issuing the same is not competent to issue it. Section 201 (3) of the Act as it stands today provides that the authority is not competent to pass any order in connection with the TDS returns after the expiry of 7 years from the end of the financial year in which the payment is made or the credit is given. Therefore, the limitation for passing the order is 7 years from the end of the relevant financial year. However, this was not the position earlier or at the time when the TDS return was filed. A plain reading of the unamended provision of Section 201(3) reveals that the limitation for passing an order in connection with the TDS return was two years from the end of the financial year in which the statement of return is filed or four years from the end of the financial year in which the payment is made or the credit is given, in any other case. In the present case, we are concerned with the earlier part of the unamended Section 201(3) of the Act, which lays down the limitation of two years. It would run from 31.3.2010 i.e. the end of the financial year in which the statement of return was filed. Accordingly, it would not be competent upon the authority to pass any order in connection thereto after 31.3.2012. Admittedly, the aforesaid period had expired much before the issuance of the impugned notice. Thus, valuable rights have accrued in favour of the assessee as during this period no order was passed. It is in these circumstances that a controversy has arisen as to whether the limitation of seven years as provided by the amended Section 201(3) would apply or whether the amendment therein is retrospective and would apply even to the returns filed in the year 2009;

++ it is seen that the case of K.M. Sharma vs. Income Tax Officer - 2002-TIOL-727-SC-IT-LB, lays down that the provisions of the Finance Act cannot be given retrospective effect and retrospectivity would only be limited as per the Act itself and that the amendment would not apply to assessments which have already become final that is before 1.4.1989 from which date the amended provision was made applicable. The Supreme Court as a general principle thus laid down that the taxing provision imposing a liability is governed by normal rule of presumption that it is not retrospective and the settled principle of law is that the law to be applied is that which is in force at the time of assessment order unless contrary is provided expressly or by necessary implication. Even a procedural provision cannot in the absence of clear contrary intendment expressed therein be given a greater retrospectivity then what has been expressly mentioned so as to enable the authority to affect the finality of the tax assessment or to open up liability which have become barred by lapse of time. We do not find any expression in the Act which may give retrospectivity to the amendment to Section 201(3) of I-T Act as introduced by the Finance Act No.2 of 2014 which came into effect on Oct 01, 2014. In addition to the above, the aforesaid provision of Section 201 (3) of the Act as amended by the Finance Act 2014 came up for consideration before the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Tata Teli Services vs. Union of India and others - 2016-TIOL-302-HC-AHM-IT and it has been specifically held that aforesaid amendment is not retrospective in nature and that a right which has accrued to the assessee prior to the aforesaid amendment cannot be affected by amendment. iN view of the above, the provision of Section 201 (3) as amended by the Finance Act 2 of 2014 is effective from 1.10.2014 only and would not apply retrospectively to any returns or to the proceedings which may have become conclusive with the passage of time on the expiry of the limitation under the unamended provision. Having said so, it may be a notice u/s 201(3) but it only requires the assessee to furnish the certain information and nothing else. It is not even a show cause notice which may be taken for the purposes of passing an order as contemplated u/s 201(3). Therefore, there is no justification to quash the above notice and it would be in the fitness of thing if the assessee appears in response of the said notice and submits the desired information to keep its record straight and not necessarily to enable the respondents to pass any order under Section 201 (3) of the Act.

(See 2017-TIOL-802-HC-ALL-IT)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023