Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
Versus
Catholic Relief Services
IT Appeal Nos. 2742 to 2744 (Delhi) of 2011
[Assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06]
JANUARY 13, 2012
ORDER
A.N. Pahuja, Accountant Member
These three appeals filed on May 27, 2011, by the Revenue against a common order dated March 30, 2011, for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XXX, New Delhi, raise the following similar grounds :
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in agreeing with the submission of the assessee that the Revenue has not filed special leave petition on the issue of limitation and charging of tax and interest under section 201(1)/201(1A) against the order of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation [2008] 305 ITR 137 (Delhi) in I. T. A. No. 603/2007 for the financial year 1990-91, dated April 23, 2008 and therefore the order of the High Court has become final. This observation is wrong, incorrect and contrary to the fact available on record as the Revenue had not accepted the order of the High Court in the case of NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation [2008] 305 ITR 137 (Delhi) and filed special leave petition against it which is still to be decided by the apex court (Ref : Civil Appeal No. 751 of 2010 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 1455 of 2009) in the case of CIT v. British Airways with connected Civil Appeal Nos. 754, 758, 759, and 764 of 2010 of NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation arising out of SLP(C) 4774 of 2009, 8146 of 2009, 8661 of 2009 and 6389 of 2009 respectively where apex court has kept open the issue on limitation vide its order dated January 20, 2010).
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the proviso to section 201(3) in which the limitation is given up to March 31, 2011 is not applicable in this case. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has wrongly interpreted section 201(3) wherein it is clearly provided that the order for a financial year commencing on or before the 1st day of April, 2007 may be passed at any time on or before the 31st day of March, 2011.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erroneously reached the conclusion that the since the order of the hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Hutchison Essar Telecome Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 230 (Delhi) was passed on April 15, 2010, after the insertion of section 201(3) by the Finance Act, 2009 the period of limitation is four years from the end of the relevant financial year. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to note that the said order of the hon’ble High Court of Delhi did not take into cognizance the provision of newly inserted section 201(3) and relied totally on the decision of NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation which was rendered before the Finance Act, 2009. Further, the Revenue has not accepted the aforesaid order of High Court in the case of Hutchison Essar Telecom Ltd. and the proposal for filing special leave petition has been sent to Director of Income-tax (L&R) in order to maintain the consistency on this issue.
4. The cancellation of the order by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) is bad in law therefore, the hon’ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal be requested to set aside the same and restore back the order of the Assessing Officer.
5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”
2. The facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that in consequence of a search conducted on September 11, 2007 in the premises of the assessee, a U.S. based NGO, established in 1943 and engaged in aid and relief work in India for a number of years, it transpired that the assessee did not deduct tax at source on salary and perquisites of its following expatriate employees :
