M/s Bharat Electronics Ltd., Machilipatnam V. THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1)(TDS), Vijayawada

CO 152/VIZ/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2596 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R PRASAD; K SIVA RAMA KUMAR ARS
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAVI SHANKAR NARAYAN
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax; Tax effect
• Section: 133A; 201(1); 10

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.518 TO 523/VIZAG/2013 & CO 149 TO 154/VIZAG /2013 M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD., MACHILIPATNAM 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . , $ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NOS. 518, 519, 520, 521, 522 & 523/VIZAG/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY) DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1)(TDS), VIJAYAWADA VS. M/S. BHARAT ELECT RONICS LTD. MACHILIPATNAM [PAN: HYDBO1509E ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) C.O. NOS.149, 150, 151, 152, 153 & 154/VIZAG/2013 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NOS. 518, 519, 520, 521, 522 & 523/VIZAG/2013) ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY) M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD. MACHILIPATNAM VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1)(TDS), VIJAYAWADA ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. RAVI SHANKAR NARAYAN, DR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.S.R. PRASAD & SHRI K. SIVA RAMA KUMAR, ARS / DATE OF HEARING : 03.11.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.11.2016 ITA NOS.518 TO 523/VIZAG/2013 & CO 149 TO 154/VIZAG /2013 M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD., MACHILIPATNAM 2 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJEC TIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE BUT I DENTICAL ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA DATED 19.4.2013 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEARS 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 AND 2011-12. SINCE, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND ISSUES ARE COMMON, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD TOGETHER AND DI SPOSED-OFF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE TIME OF HE ARING SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN ITA NOS.521, 522 & 523/VIZAG/2013 IS BELOW THE MANDATORY LIMIT FIXED BY THE CBDT, FOR FI LING APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT, THEREFORE, APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN IT A NOS.521, 522 & 523/VIZAG/2013 ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. THE A.R. FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THESE APPEALS ARE IN SUPPORT OF ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. WE FIND THAT TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN ITA NOS.521, 522 & 523/VIZAG/2013, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2011-12 IS BELO W MONETARY LIMIT FIXED BY THE CBDT, FOR FILING BEFORE THE ITAT, VIDE CIRCULAR 21/2015 DATED 10.12.2015. THE LD. D.R. FAIRLY ACCEPTED THA T TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS BELOW RS.10 LAKHS. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE ITA NOS.518 TO 523/VIZAG/2013 & CO 149 TO 154/VIZAG /2013 M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD., MACHILIPATNAM 3 APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NOS.521, 522 & 523/VIZAG/2013 AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 3. THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CO NOS.152, 153 & 154/VIZAG/2013 ARE IN SUPPORT OF ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A). THEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS RECORDED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, W E DISMISS THE COS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NOS.521, 522 & 523/VIZAG/2013 AND CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CO NOS.152, 153 & 154/VIZAG/2013 ARE DISMISSED. ITA NOS.518, 519 & 520/VIZAG/2013 & CO NOS.149, 150 & 151/VIZAG/2013: 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF NIGHT VISION EQUIPMENTS AT ITS PLANT MACHILIPATNAM. A SURVEY OP ERATION U/S 133A OF THE ACT, WAS CONDUCTED IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 29.10.2010. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN PAYING CANTEEN ALLOWANCES OF RS.1 250/- P.M. TO ITS EMPLOYEES AS PART OF THEIR SALARY. THE A.O. FURTHE R OBSERVED THAT THE EMPLOYEES AT THEIR OPTION EITHER CAN DRAW MONTHLY F IXED CANTEEN ALLOWANCES OF RS.1250/- OR OPT FOR SODEXO COUPONS W ORTH RS.1250/- IN ITA NOS.518 TO 523/VIZAG/2013 & CO 149 TO 154/VIZAG /2013 M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD., MACHILIPATNAM 4 LIEU OF CANTEEN ALLOWANCES. THE A.O. FURTHER OBSER VED THAT WHILE DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE U/S 192 OF THE ACT, THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT INCLUDED THE VALUE OF SODEXO COUPONS ISSUED TO ITS EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. THE A.O. WA S OF THE OPINION THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 3(7)(III) OF INCOME T AX RULES, 1962, THE VALUE OF FREE FOOD AND NON-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PROVI DED BY THE EMPLOYER IS A TAXABLE PERQUISITE WHICH NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED IN GROSS SALARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 192 OF TH E ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO INCLUDE THE VALUE OF SODEXO COUP ONS IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTIO N OF TAX AT SOURCE, THE A.O. FELT THAT THERE IS SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND HENCE PASSED ORDERS U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, 2010-11 & 2011-12 AND COMPUTED SHORT DEDUC TION OF TAX AND INTEREST THEREON. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE REITERATED SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE A.O. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE, DELETED ADDITION MADE BY T HE A.O. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT(A) ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. 6. THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT, W HEN FREE MEAL COUPONS PROVIDED TO THEIR EMPLOYEES, WHICH WERE NON -TRANSFERABLE, ITA NOS.518 TO 523/VIZAG/2013 & CO 149 TO 154/VIZAG /2013 M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD., MACHILIPATNAM 5 EXCHANGEABLE AT THE FRANCHISEES ESTABLISHMENT OF S ODEXO AND ALSO WHICH WERE VALUED AT RS.50/-, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF TAXABLE PERQUISITES WHICH NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUC TION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 192 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 3(7)(III) OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1 962, IF THE VALUE OF FREE MEAL COUPONS IS LESS THAN RS.50/-, THEN THERE IS NO TAXABLE PERQUISITES IN THE HANDS OF THE EMPLOYEE. THE ASSESSEE WHILE ISSU ING FREE MEAL COUPONS HAS TAKEN CARE THAT THE EMPLOYEES WILL FULF ILL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE AGREEMENT ENTERED WITH M/S. SODEXO AND ALSO CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE COMPANY BEFORE ENCASHING FREE MEAL C OUPONS AT THE AUTHORIZED FRANCHISEES OF SODEXO. IT WAS FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT THE A.O. WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC INSTANCE OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO ENCASHED THE VOUCHERS WITHOUT SIGNING ON THE BACK S IDE OF THE VOUCHER, SIMPLY COMPUTED SHORT DEDUCTION OF TDS. IN THE ABS ENCE OF A FINDING THAT A PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE HAS SOME AMOUNT OF TAXAB LE PERQUISITE, ON WHICH TDS IS TO BE MADE, ORDER THE IMPLEMENTATION O F THE TDS U/S 192 TREATING ALL THE EMPLOYEES AS VIOLATORS IS OPPOSED TO THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE A.O. FAILED TO GIVE A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT A PARTICULAR EMPLOYEES ARE LIABLE TO PAY TAX FROM WHOM TAX IS TO BE COLLEC TED AND REMITTED TO THE CREDIT OF THE GOVERNMENT. WITHOUT POINTING OUT THE LAPSES, BASED ON A STATEMENT OF ONE EMPLOYEE HOLDING ASSESSEE AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT ITA NOS.518 TO 523/VIZAG/2013 & CO 149 TO 154/VIZAG /2013 M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD., MACHILIPATNAM 6 FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IS INCORRECT. I N SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJAR AT HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT(TDS) VS. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. (2009 ) 308 ITR 82. THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED A.O.S ORDER. 7. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CONSIDERED MAT ERIALS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLA NATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONB LE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT(TDS) VS. RELIANCE INDUSTR IES LTD. REPORTED IN (2009) 308 ITR 82, HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LI ABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 192 OF THE ACT, ON THE ESTIMATED VALUE O F PERQUISITES FOR ISSUING FREE SODEXO MEAL COUPONS TO ITS EMPLOYEES. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS EXTRACTED BELOW: 5. I HAVE SEEN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT , GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS MADE UNDER SECTION 201(1)/201(1A) BESIDE S PERUSING ALL OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED IN THE ORDERS BY THE A.O. THAT IN THE CASE OF 'SODEXO' PREPAID MEAL VOUCHERS, HE H AS QUESTIONED A COUPLE OF EMPLOYEES AS TO HOW THEY UTILIZED THE PREPAID ME AL VOUCHERS AND WHEN THEY REPLIED THAT THE SAID DETAILS COULDN'T BE FURN ISHED AS THEY DIDN'T MAINTAIN THE DETAILS AND ALSO THERE WAS NO STATUTOR Y OR OTHER OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN SUCH UTILIZATION DETAILS, THE AO WAS OF TH E VIEW THAT THEY WERE NOT UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE TO WHICH THEY HAVE BEE N ISSUED. IN THAT BACKGROUND, HE COMPUTED THE TAXABLE VALUE OF THE PE RQUISITE OF THE EMPLOYEES @ 20.6% OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE MEAL CO UPONS AND ORDERED FOR COLLECTION OF TDS ON THE ESTIMATED PERQUISITE V ALUE. HE HAS FIXED THE FOLLOWING TAXES LIABLE TO BE DEDUCTED UNDER SEC. 19 2 TOWARDS PERQUISITE: FINANCIAL YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR T.D.S. AND INTEREST ORDERED TO BE PAID (RS.) DATE OF THE ORDERS BY DCIT, CIRCLE.3(1), VJA 2006-07 2007-08 36,65,110 21.3.2012 2009-10 2010-11 13,32,300 30.3.2012 2010-11 2011-12 12,09,324 30.3.2012 ITA NOS.518 TO 523/VIZAG/2013 & CO 149 TO 154/VIZAG /2013 M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD., MACHILIPATNAM 7 THE APPELLANT-COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS WAS THAT WHEN TH EY PROVIDED FREE MEAL COUPONS TO THEIR EMPLOYEES, WHICH WERE NON-TRA NSFERABLE, EXCHANGEABLE AT THE FRANCHISEE ESTABLISHMENTS OF 'S ODEXO' AND WHICH WERE VALUED AT RS.501-EACH (I.E., THE MAXIMUM AMOUN T FIXED BY THE 1.1. RULES, 1962), THE CARE TAKEN BY THEM WAS ADEQUATE A ND IF SOME EMPLOYEES HAVE MISUSED THE COUPONS, FIXING A TAX LI ABILITY ON THEM IS UNJUSTIFIED. IT IS SEEN FORM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE A.O. THAT HE HAS NOT MADE ANY EMPLOYEE-SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THE MISUSE OF THE SODE XO COUPONS. IN THE ABSENCE OF A FINDING THAT A PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE HAS SOME AMOUNT OF TAXABLE PERQUISITE, ON WHICH TDS IS TO BE MADE, ORD ERING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE T.D.S. UNDER SEC. 192 TREATIN G ALL THE EMPLOYEES AS VIOLATORS IS OPPOSED TO THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE EMPL OYER'S OBLIGATION IS TO DEDUCT TAX FROM THOSE EMPLOYEES, WHO ARE LIABLE TO PAY TAX. WHEN THE AG. HAS NOT GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT SOME N AMED EMPLOYEES ONLY ARE LIABLE TO PAY TAX, FROM WHOM TAX IS TO BE COLLE CTED AND REMITTED TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, COLLECTION OF TAX IN THE MANNER ORDERED HAS NO SANCTION OF LAW. THE APPELLANT RELIED ON THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH CO URT'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT(TDS) VS. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., REPOR TED IN (2009) 308 ITR 82 (GUJ.), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT UNDER CIRCUMSTA NCES SIMILAR TO THEIR CASE AND UPON ALLEGATIONS OF AO. SIMILAR TO THEIR C ASE, THAT WHEN THE EMPLOYER ISSUED FREE MEAL COUPONS, WHICH ARE NON-TR ANSFERABLE AND EXCHANGEABLE AT SPECIFIED FRANCHISEE OUTLETS OF 'SO DEXO',(IN THEIR CASE' ACCOR'), THE OBSERVATION THAT SOME EMPLOYEES HAVE M ISUSED, CAN'T FASTEN A TDS LIABILITY UNDER SEC.192, L.T.ACT,1961 ON THE EMPLOYER-COMPANY. THE HON'BLE COURT OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 'THE SAID CONTEN TION PROCEEDS ON A MISCONCEPTION AS TO THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS STIPULATED BY THE RULE IN QUESTION. THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF COUPONS CANNOT ENVISAGE AS TO WHICH OF THE EMPLOYEES WOULD MISUSE THE COUPONS BECAUSE THE LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IS CO -RELATED WITH THE TAXABILITY OF THE AMOUNT IN HANDS OF A PARTICULAR E MPLOYEE AND THERE CAN BE NO CASE OF ESTIMATION ON PERCENTAGE BASIS. THE P RIMARY LIABILITY TO OFFER THE AMOUNT FOR TAX IS THAT OF THE EMPLOYEE CONCERNE D AND IT IS ONLY BY A PRESCRIBED MODE OF RECOVERY THAT THE EMPLOYER IS RE QUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. NEEDLESS TO STATE THAT SUCH DEDUCTION HA S TO BE SPECIFICALLY EMPLOYEE-WISE AND THE EMPLOYER CANNOT BE CALLED UPO N TO PRESUME THAT A PARTICULAR PERCENTAGE OF EMPLOYEES, OUT OF THE TOTA L WORKFORCE, SHALL MISUSE THE FACILITY SO AS TO WARRANT DEDUCTION OF T AX AT SOURCE. FURTHERMORE, CORRESPONDINGLY SUCH TAX DEDUCTED AT S OURCE HAS TO BE GIVEN CREDIT TO THE EMPLOYEE CONCERNED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE EMPLOYEE AND UNLESS AND UNTIL THE TAX DEDUCTION CERTIFICATE SPEC IFIED THE EMPLOYEE CONCERNED THERE CAN BE NO CORRESPONDING CREDIT GIVE N TO THE EMPLOYEE.' ITA NOS.518 TO 523/VIZAG/2013 & CO 149 TO 154/VIZAG /2013 M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD., MACHILIPATNAM 8 8. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND ALSO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJA RAT HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT (TDS) VS. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WHEN THE EMPLOYER ISSUED FREE MEAL COUPONS WHICH AR E NOT TRANSFERABLE AND EXCHANGEABLE AT SPECIFIED FRANCHISEE OUTLET OF SODEXO, THE OBSERVATION OF THE A.O. THAT SOME EMPLOYEES HAVE MI S-USED THE CARDS CANNOT FASTEN A TDS LIABILITY U/S 192 OF THE ACT ON THE EMPLOYER COMPANY. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVAN T FACTS HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. TOWARDS SHOR T DEDUCTION OF TDS AND INTEREST THEREON U/S 201 & 201(1A) OF THE ACT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASONS TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A). HENCE, WE INCLINED TO UPHOLD CIT(A) ORDER AND DISMISS THE APPEALS FILE D BY THE REVENUE. 9. IN SO FAR AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IS CONCERNE D, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED A LEGAL GROUND, IN AS MUCH THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT, IS BAR RED BY LIMITATION AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION (3) OF SECTION 20 1 OF THE ACT, NO ORDER SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB SECTION (1) DEEMING A PERSO N 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 T HE EXPIRY OF 2 YEARS ITA NOS.518 TO 523/VIZAG/2013 & CO 149 TO 154/VIZAG /2013 M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD., MACHILIPATNAM 9 FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE STA TEMENT IS FILED, IN A CASE WHERE THE STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN SECTION 200 HAS BEEN FILED OR 6 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH P AYMENT IS MADE OR CREDIT IS GIVEN, IN ANY OTHER CASE. THE PROVISO AP PENDED TO SUB SECTION (3) OF SECTION 201(1) PROVIDES THAT SUCH ORDER FOR A FINANCIAL YEAR COMMENCING ON OR BEFORE THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, 200 7 MAY BE PASSED AT ANY TIME ON OR BEFORE THE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2011. IN THE PRESENT CASE ON HAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ORDER U/S 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT, ON 21.3.2012 WHICH IS BEYOND THE STIPUL ATED TIME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION (3) OF SECTION 201 OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS NOT MAINTAIN ABLE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CONSIDERED TH E MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS PASS ED ORDER U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7-08 ON 21.3.2012. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SUB SECTION (3) OF SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT, NO ORDER DEEMING A PERSON TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR A FAILURE TO DEDUCT THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE TAX FROM A PERS ON RESIDENT IN INDIA AT ANY TIME WITHIN 2 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FIN ANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE STATEMENT IS FILED IN A CASE WHERE THE STATEMEN T REFERRED TO IN ITA NOS.518 TO 523/VIZAG/2013 & CO 149 TO 154/VIZAG /2013 M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD., MACHILIPATNAM 10 SECTION 200 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN FILED OR 6 YEARS FR OM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE OR CREDIT I S GIVEN, IN ANY OTHER CASE. THE PROVISO PROVIDED TO SUB SECTION (3) PROV IDES THAT FOR A FINANCIAL YEAR COMMENCING ON OR BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2007 ANY ORDER U/S 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT MAY BE PASSED A T ANY TIME ON OR BEFORE THE 31 ST MARCH, 2011. IN THE PRESENT CASE ON HAND, ON PERU SAL OF THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE A.O . HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON 21.3.2012. IT IS CLEARLY BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT PROVIDED UNDER SUB SECTION (3) OF SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O . U/S 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 IS BARRE D BY LIMITATION AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. ACCORDINGLY, WE QUASHED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 11. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION IN SUPPO RT OF ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A. THEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS RECORDED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, WE DISMISS CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NOS.518, 519, 520, 521, 522 & 523/VIZAG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2007-08, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 RESPEC TIVELY ARE ITA NOS.518 TO 523/VIZAG/2013 & CO 149 TO 154/VIZAG /2013 M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD., MACHILIPATNAM 11 DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN CO NOS.149 TO 154/VIZAG/2013 ARE ALSO DISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH NOV16. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (V. DURGA RAO) (G. MANJUNATHA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /VISAKHAPATNAM: ' /DATED : 08.11.2016 VG/SPS )# *# /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(TDS), VIJA YAWADA 2. / THE RESPONDENT M/S. BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD., M ACHILIPATNAM 3. + / THE CIT(TDS), HYDERABAD 4. + ( ) / THE CIT (A), VIJAYAWADA 5. # . , . , # / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // 12 . (SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY) . , # / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM