Bank of India – Kirkee Branch Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Conclusion: In present facts of the case, it was held by the Hon’ble Tribunal that expired time limit does not get revived with the extended time limit inserted later on.
Held: In present facts of the case, the assessee-bank accepted deposits from its customers, on which tax was deductible at source u/s 194A of the Act. The assessee furnished TDS statements in respect of the four quarters ending on 30.6.2009, 30.9.2009, 31.12.2009 and 31.3.2010 on 21.7.2009, 29.10.2009, 15.01.2010 and 3.5.2010 respectively. The AO found certain anomalies therein and observed that in some cases there was no deduction of tax, whilst in others there was short deduction of tax on interest payments. The order herein was passed in 2017 which was governed by the then existing time limit u/s 201(3) of the Act as amended by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014.
The Hon’ble Tribunal while allowing the appeal that prior to the Finance Act, 2009, no time limit was provided for passing of an order u/s 201(1). It was for the first time that a time limit for passing of an order u/s 201(1) was inserted through sub-section (3) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 w.e.f. 1.4.2010. A period of two years from the end of the F.Y. 2011-12 came to an end on 31.3.2014. As against that, the order was actually passed on 27.3.2017. Therefore, the order was clearly time barred.
Once the action of the AO got time barred w.r.t. the relevant provisions as applicable at the material time, such an expired time limit does not get revived with the extended time limit inserted later on. When the substituted provision came into force on 1.10.2014, the time available with the AO for passing of the order for the year under consideration had already expired. Even though limitation is a procedural law, but the subsequent amendment enlarging the scope of limitation prospectively, cannot give a new lease of life to an already time barred action.
