Case Law Details
Eris Life Sciences (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (High Court Gujarat)
As per sub-section (3) of section 201 which stood prior to 1.10.2014, the initiation of action for failing to deduct tax at source is barred by limitation. The amended sub-section(3) of section 201 with effect from 1.10.2014 enlarges the period of limitation to seven years which, as held by this Court in the case of Tata Teleservices cannot be applied retrospectively. Therefore, the notices issued by AO were quashed.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
The petitioners have challenged the notices dated 15.9.2015 calling upon the petitioners to furnish some information including the petitioner’s account for the assessment year 2009-10. Notices were issued in the background of section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act for short). These notices are challenged in the petitions on the ground that such inquiry is time barred. Learned counsel for the petitioners would draw our attention to sub-section (3) of section 201 of the Act as it stood prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2014 with effect from 1.10.2014 which reads as under:
“201(3) No order shall be made under sub-section (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 seven years from the end of financial year in which payment is made or credit is given.”
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
