Case Law Details
Facts of the Case
Appeals filed by the assessee were withdrawn. The Revenue filed the appeal. Facts of the case were that the assessee company was engaged in the business of running a mall. A TDS survey was conducted on 15-11-2012 during which it was observed that the assessee company had deducted tax on professional fees u/s.194J at lower rate than as required by the section.
Question of Law
Whether as per proviso to section 201(3) the Assessing Officer can pass the order after 31.3.2011?
Contention of the Assessee
The appellant filed quarterly statement for F.Y. 2007-08 on 12-06-2008. As per proviso to Sec.201(3) order u/s.201(1)/201(1A) was required to be passed on or before 31-03-2011. In this case order u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) has been passed on 30-03-2012, the same is clearly barred by limitation.
Contention of the Revenue
The ITO (TDS) has fixed the 8% rate, but the deduction is made at a much lower rate. In view of the above discrepancies, the AO held that there is default on part of the assessee for short deduction.
Held by the Tribunal
The Hon’ble tribunal held that as per proviso to section 201(3) of the I.T. Act, the AO was required to pass the order u/s.201(1)/201(1A) on or before 31- 03-2011. The finding given by the Ld.CIT(A) that the order passed u/s.201(1)/201(1A) on 30-03-2012 by the AO was barred by limitation. Since the order passed on 30-03-2012 is clearly barred by limitation, therefore, Hon’ble Tribunal upheld the orders of CIT(A) annulling the order passed by the AO. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.
