M/s Acer India Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Officer (TDS) Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

CO 52/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0003 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMA MEENAKSHI JT BENGALURU
• Assessee Lawyers: MANJU PRASAD L
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Retrospective amendment; Non-deduction of tax; Time period of passing order
• Section: 201(1); 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 2570 TO 2572/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2009 - 10 TO 2011 - 12 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), CIRCLE 1(1), BANGALORE. VS. M/S. ACER INDIA PVT. LTD., NO.13, 6 TH FLOOR, EMBASSY HEIGHTS, MAGRATH ROAD, NEXT TO HOSMAT HOSPITAL, BANGALORE 560 025. PAN: BLRAO 1844D APP ELL ANT RESPONDENT CO NOS. 51 TO 53/BANG/2018 [IN ITA NOS. 2570 TO 2572/BANG/2017] ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2009 - 10 TO 2011 - 12 M/S. ACER INDIA PVT. LTD., BANGALORE 560 025. PAN: BLRAO 1844D VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), CIRCLE 1(1), BANGALORE. CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SMT. PADMAMEENAKSHI, JT.CIT(DR)(ITAT), BENGALURU. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANJU PRASAD L. DATE OF HEARING : 2 5 . 0 7 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 . 0 9 .201 8 ITA NOS. 2570 TO 2572/BANG/2017 & CO NOS.51 TO 53/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 11 O R D E R PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.2570 TO 2572/BANG/2017 ARE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AGAINST A COMMON ORDER DATED 28.9.2017 OF CIT(APPEA LS)-13, BENGALURU, RELATING TO FYS 2008-09 TO 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED CROSS- OBJECTIONS IN C.O.NOS.51 TO 53/BANG/2018 AGAINST TH E VERY SAME ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINES S OF PROVIDING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RELATED SERVICES. THERE WAS A SURVEY CONDUCTED BY THE REVENUE IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSE SSEE U/S.133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [THE ACT] ON 17.6.2015 TO VERI FY THE COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO VARIOUS TAX DEDUCTION A T SOURCE (TDS) UNDER THE ACT. IN THE COURSE OF SUCH SURVEY, THE SURVEY TEAM NOTICED THAT:- (I) THERE WAS DELAY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON PROVISION FOR EXPENSES MADE IN THE END OF THE YEAR; (II) SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS SUPPLY OF MA NPOWER; AND (III) NON-DEDUCTION OF TAXES ON PAYMENTS MADE TO DI STRIBUTORS TOWARDS PRICE PROTECTION AND SPECIAL PRICE CLEARANCE DISCOUNTS. 3. THE RESPONDENT HEREIN ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 8.2.2016 FOR ALL THE THREE FYS IN THESE APPEALS U/S/201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT FOR TREATING THE ASSESSEE AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR TAXES NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND FOR CHARGING INTEREST ON TAXES NOT DEPOS ITED INTO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE DATES, RESPECTI VELY. SEC.201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT READS THUS:- ITA NOS. 2570 TO 2572/BANG/2017 & CO NOS.51 TO 53/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 11 CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO DEDUCT OR PAY. 201. (1) WHERE ANY PERSON, INCLUDING THE PRINCIPAL OFFIC ER OF A COMPANY, ( A ) WHO IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT ANY SUM IN ACCORDANC E WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; OR ( B ) REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1A) OF SECTION 192 , BEING AN EMPLOYER, DOES NOT DEDUCT, OR DOES NOT PAY, OR AFTER SO DEDUC TING FAILS TO PAY, THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE TAX, AS REQUIRED BY OR UNDER THIS ACT, THEN, SUCH PERSON, SHALL, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY OTHER CONSEQUENCES WHICH HE MAY INCUR, BE DEEMED TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IN RESPECT OF SUCH TAX: PROVIDED THAT NO PENALTY SHALL BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 221 FROM SUCH PERSON, UNLESS THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISF IED THAT SUCH PERSON, WITHOUT GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASONS, HAS FA ILED TO DEDUCT AND PAY SUCH TAX.] (1A) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SEC TION (1), IF ANY SUCH PERSON, PRINCIPAL OFFICER OR COMPANY AS IS REF ERRED TO IN THAT SUB-SECTION DOES NOT DEDUCT THE WHOLE OR ANY PART O F THE TAX OR AFTER DEDUCTING FAILS TO PAY THE TAX AS REQUIRED BY OR UNDER THIS ACT, HE OR IT SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY SIMPLE INTEREST AT ONE PER CENT FOR EVERY MONTH OR PART OF A MONTH ON THE AMOUNT OF SUC H TAX FROM THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE TO THE DATE O N WHICH SUCH TAX IS ACTUALLY PAID AND SUCH INTEREST SHALL BE PAI D BEFORE FURNISHING THE STATEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200]. 4. THERE WAS NO PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR PASSING OR DER TREATING A PERSON AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S.201(1) OF THE ACT AND FOR LEVYING INTEREST ON NON-DEPOSIT OF TAX NOT DEDUCTED AT SOURCE OR DEDUCT ED BUT NOT PAID TO THE CREDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT, U/S.201(1 A) OF THE ACT. A PERIOD ITA NOS. 2570 TO 2572/BANG/2017 & CO NOS.51 TO 53/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 11 OF LIMITATION WAS INTRODUCED FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2009. THE FOLLOWING SUB-SECTIONS (3) WAS INSERTED AFTER SUB-S ECTION (2) OF SECTION 201 BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2009, W.E.F. 1-4-2010 : - (3) NO ORDER SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) D EEMING 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 IN DIA, AT ANY TIME AFTER THE EXPIRY OF (I ) TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE STATEMENT IS FILED IN A CASE WHERE THE STATEMENT RE FERRED TO IN SECTION 200 HAS BEEN FILED; (II ) FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YE AR IN WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE OR CREDIT IS GIVEN, IN ANY OTHER CA SE : PROVIDED THAT SUCH 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. 5. SUB-SECTION (3) QUOTED ABOVE WAS SUBSTITUTED BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2014, W.E.F. 1-10-2014, AS UNDER:- (3) NO ORDER SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) D EEMING 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 IN DIA, AT ANY TIME AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SEVEN YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE OR CREDIT IS GIVEN. 6. IT WAS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ON 8.2.2016 THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD FILED TDS RETURNS FOR THE RELEVANT FYS AS PER THE DETAILS GIV EN BELOW:- A.Y. 2009-10 FOR QUARTER ENDED 30 JUNE 2008 ON 22 SEPTEMBER 2008 ; FOR QUARTER ENDED 30 SEPTEMBER 2008 ON 31 MARCH 200 9; ITA NOS. 2570 TO 2572/BANG/2017 & CO NOS.51 TO 53/BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 11 FOR QUARTER ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2008 ON 31 MARCH 2009 ; AND FOR QUARTER ENDED 31 MARCH 200 ON 15 JULY 2009. A.Y. 2010-11 FOR QUARTER ENDED 30 JUNE 2009 ON 25 FEBRUARY 2010; FOR QUARTER ENDED 30 SEPTEMBER 2009 ON 25 FEBRUARY 2010; FOR QUARTER ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2009 ON 25 FEBRUARY 2 010; AND FOR QUARTER ENDED 31 MARCH 2010 ON 16 JUNE 2010. A.Y. 2011-12 FOR QUARTER ENDED 30 JUNE 2010 ON 22 JULY 2010; FOR QUARTER ENDED 30 SEPTEMBER 2010 ON 15 OCTOBER 2 010; FOR QUARTER ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2010 ON 17 JANUARY 20 11; AND FOR QUARTER ENDED 31 MARCH 2011 ON 14 MAY 2011. 7. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE IT HAD FILED R ETURN OF TDS FOR THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEARS AS STATED ABOVE, THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 201(3)(I) OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (3)(I) OF SEC.201(1) OF T HE ACT AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO ITS SUBSTITUTION BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014 W.E.F. 1.10.2014, ANY ACTION IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE WHO HAS FILED A R ETURN OF TDS U/S. 200 OF THE ACT HAS TO BE PASSED WITHIN A PERIOD OF 2 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN OF TDS U/S. 200 WAS FILED. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE TIME LIMIT FOR PASSING AN ORDE R U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT FOR THE FYS 08-09 TO 10-11 WOULD BE 2 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT FY AS PER 201(3)(I) OF THE ACT, WOULD EXPI RE TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE STATEMENT IS FIL ED IN A CASE WHERE THE STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN SECTION 200 HAS BEEN FILED . THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO DATED 8.2.2016 WAS INVALID AS THE TIME LIMIT FOR PASSING ORDERS FOR THE RELEVANT FYS U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT HAD ALREADY EXPIRED. ITA NOS. 2570 TO 2572/BANG/2017 & CO NOS.51 TO 53/BANG/2018 PAGE 6 OF 11 8. THE RESPONDENT VIDE ITS ORDERS DATED 30.3.2016 F OR ALL THE THREE FYS HELD THAT THE SUBSTITUTED PROVISIONS OF SEC.201(3) SUBSTITUTED BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2014, W.E.F. 1-10-2014, REFERR ED TO IN PARAGRAPH-5 WOULD APPLY TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFO RE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT ARE NOT BARRED BY T IME AND THAT THE AO WOULD HAVE A PERIOD OF 7 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THERE WAS DEFAULT TO COMPLY WITH THE RELEV ANT PROVISIONS OF LAW RELATING TO TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE. THE ASSESSEE H AD CONTENDED BEFORE THE AO THAT THERE WAS NO DEFAULT U/S.201(1) OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY NO ORDER COULD BE PASSED U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE A CT. THESE CONTENTIONS WERE ALSO REJECTED BY THE AO. 9. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) AGAI NST THE ORDERS OF THE RESPONDENT HEREIN FOR FY 2008-09 TO 2010-11. T HE ASSESSEE REITERATED ITS PLEA THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE BARRED BY TIME A ND THAT THERE WAS NO DEFAULT U/S.201(1) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) AGREED W ITH THE ASSESSEE ON THE PLEA OF LIMITATION AND QUASHED THE ORDERS PASSED U/ S. 201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT FOR ALL THE THREE FYS. HE DID NOT DECIDE T HE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS AT ALL DEFAULT U/S.201(1) OF THE ACT. AG GRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) QUASHING THE ORDERS PASSED U/S.201(1) & 201( 1A) OF THE ACT FOR ALL THE THREE FYS AS BARRED BY LIMITATION, THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D CROSS OBJECTIONS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL CONTENDING THAT THERE WAS NO DE FAULT U/S.201(1) OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY NO ORDER COULD BE PASSED U/S.2 01(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR WHO REITERATED THE STAND OF THE REVENUE AS REFLECTED IN THE GROUND S OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: ITA NOS. 2570 TO 2572/BANG/2017 & CO NOS.51 TO 53/BANG/2018 PAGE 7 OF 11 1. THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN CANCELLING THE ORDER U/S. 201(1) AND 201(1A). 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING THE ASSESSM ENT AS BARRED BY LIMITATIONS AS PER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 20 1(3) ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADHERED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 200 OF THE I.T. ACT WI TH REGARD TO TIMELY FILING OF QUARTERLY TDS RETURNS. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE RAISED DURI NG THE COURSE OF APPEAL AND ACTUAL HEARING, THE APPELLANT PRAYS T HAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND CANCELLED. 11. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE RE VENUE, THE ONLY POINT RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THESE APPEALS IS THA T THE RETURNS OF TDS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE FOR THE THREE F YS WERE BELATED AND THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.201(3)(I) OF THE AC T DOES NOT APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASE. A PLAIN READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.201(3) OF THE ACT AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO ITS SUBSTITUTION BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2014 SHOWS THAT THE SAID PROVISIONS DEALT WITH TWO TYPE OF CASES; (I ) A CASE WHERE THE STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN SECTION 200 HAS BEEN FILED ; (II ) IN ANY OTHER CASE. THERE WAS NO THIRD CATEGORY OF CASE WHERE A STATEME NT REFERRED TO IN SEC.200 IS FILED BELATEDLY. THE ARGUMENT OF THE RE VENUE AS PUT FORTH IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 12. AS FAR AS THE QUESTION WHETHER, SECTION 201(3) AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT (NO.2) 2014 WOULD BE APPLICABLE RETROSP ECTIVELY OR NOT, THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TATA TELESERVICES VS. UNION OF INDIA AND SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NOS. 1623, 2115 AND 4771 OF 2015 JUDGEMENT DATED 16/02/2016 , RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 TOOK THE VIEW THAT SECTION 201(3), AS AMENDED BY FINANC E ACT NO.2 OF 2014 ITA NOS. 2570 TO 2572/BANG/2017 & CO NOS.51 TO 53/BANG/2018 PAGE 8 OF 11 SHALL NOT BE APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY AND THEREFO RE, NO ORDER UNDER SECTION 201(1) OF THE ACT CAN BE PASSED FOR WHICH LIMITATION HAD ALREADY EXPIRED, PRIOR TO AMENDED SECTION 201(3) AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT NO.2 OF 2014. THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WAS THAT THE PETITIONER WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING TELE- COMMUNICATION SERVICES AND SELLING SERVICE PRODUCTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. ACCORDING TO THE PETITIONER, IT IS GOVERNED BY TELE -COMMUNICATION INTERCONNECTION USAGE CHARGES REGULATION, 2003 ISSU ED BY TRAI UNDER THE TRAI ACT, 1997. THE PETITIONER FILED ITS TDS STA TEMENT REGULARLY FOR THE F.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 FOR RESPECTIVE QUARTERS. THE PETITIONER WAS SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS DATED 09/10/2014 REQUIRING PERSONA L ATTENDANCE IN CONNECTION WITH PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INCOME TAX AC T FOR A.Y. 2008-2009 AND 2009-2010 SEEKING DETAILS REGARDING TDS FOR F.Y . 2007-2008 AND 2008-2009. THE PETITIONER MADE SUBMISSIONS DATED 15 /12/2014 AND CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SOUGHT TO BE INITIATED ARE TIME BARRED IN VIEW OF SECTION 201(3) AS IT STOOD AT THE END OF THE RESPECTIVE FY 2007-2008 AND 2008-2009. ON A WRIT PETITION FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AS BARRED BY LIMITATION, THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT EARLIER SECTION 20 1(3) AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 AMENDED ON 28/5/2012 WAS SPECIFICALLY MAD E APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY W.E.F. 1/4/2012, WHEREBY LIMITATION PERIOD WAS SUBSTITUTED FROM FOUR YEARS TO SIX YEARS FOR PASSING ORDERS WHE RE TDS STATEMENT HAD NOT BEEN FILED. HOWEVER, SECTION 201(3) AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT NO. 2 OF 2014, AS MENTIONED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF THE FINA NCE BILL NO.2 OF 2014 IS STATED TO HAVE EFFECT FROM 1ST OCTOBER, 2014. TH US, WHEREVER THE PARLIAMENT / LEGISLATURE WANTED TO MAKE PROVISIONS APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY, IT HAS BEEN SO PROVIDED. THE HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT REFERRED TO THE CASE OF S.S. GADGIL AIR 1965 SC 720 , WHEREIN THE HONBLE ITA NOS. 2570 TO 2572/BANG/2017 & CO NOS.51 TO 53/BANG/2018 PAGE 9 OF 11 SUPREME COURT HAD OBSERVED AND HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION OR CLEAR IMPLICATION, LEGISLATURE DOES NO T INTEND TO ATTRIBUTE TO THE AMENDING PROVISION A GREATER RETROSPECTIVITY THAN I S EXPRESSLY MENTIONED, NOR TO AUTHORIZE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TO COMMENCE PROCEEDINGS WHICH BEFORE THE NEW ACT CAME INTO FORCE HAD UPON THE EXP IRY OF THE PERIOD PROVIDED, BECOME BARRED. THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT ALS O NOTICED THAT SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF J. P. JANI, INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE IV, WARD-G, AHMEDA BAD AND ANOTHER, VERSUS INDUPRASAD DEVESHANKER BHATT , REPORTED IN AIR 1969 S.C. 778 AND WHILE INTERPRETING SECTION 297(2)(D)(II) OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF S. S. GADGIL VERSUS LAL AND CO., [1964-53 ITR 231 = AIR 1965 SC 171 . CONSIDERING THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE IT AND MORE PARTICULARLY CONSIDERIN G THE FACT THAT WHILE AMENDING SECTION 201 BY FINANCE ACT, 2014, IT HAS B EEN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE SAME SHALL BE APPLICABLE W.E.F. 1/10/2014 AND EVEN CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT PROCEEDINGS FOR F.Y. 2007 -08 AND 2008-09 HAD BECOME TIME BARRED AND/OR FOR THE AFORESAID FINANC IAL YEARS, LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 201(3)(I) OF THE ACT HAD ALREADY EXP IRED ON 31/3/2011 AND 31/3/2012, RESPECTIVELY, MUCH PRIOR TO THE AMENDMEN T IN SECTION 201 AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2014 AND THEREFORE, AS SUCH A RIGHT HAS BEEN ACCRUED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING T HE FACT THAT WHEREVER LEGISLATURE WANTED TO GIVE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT SO SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED WHILE AMENDING SECTION 201(3)(II) OF THE ACT AS WAS AMEND ED BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1/4/2010, IT IS TO BE HELD THAT SECTION 201(3), AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT NO.2 OF 2014 SHA LL NOT BE APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY AND THEREFORE, NO ORDER UNDER SECTI ON 201(1) OF THE ACT CAN ITA NOS. 2570 TO 2572/BANG/2017 & CO NOS.51 TO 53/BANG/2018 PAGE 10 OF 11 BE PASSED FOR WHICH LIMITATION HAD ALREADY EXPIRED PRIOR TO AMENDMENT TO SECTION 201(3) BY FINANCE ACT NO.2 OF 2014. 13. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE BEFORE US THAT THE PROCEED INGS U/S.201(1) OF THE ACT WERE BARRED BY TIME IF THE LAW APPLICABLE FOR T HE RELEVANT PERIOD IS THE LAW AS IT PREVAILED PRIOR TO AMENDMENT TO SEC.201(3 ) BY THE FINANCE ACT NO.2 OF 2014. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO E RROR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE ORDERS PASSED FOR FY 200 8-09 TO 2010-11 WERE BARRED BY LIMITATION AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASHING THEM . WE FIND NO GROUNDS TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THERE FORE DISMISS THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE. 14. SINCE THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED AS BARRED BY TIME, THERE IS NO NECESSITY TO DECIDE THE QUESTION RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CAN BE C ONSIDERED AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S.201(1) OF THE ACT. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) ( N.V. VASUDEVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 14 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. / D ESAI S MURTHY / ITA NOS. 2570 TO 2572/BANG/2017 & CO NOS.51 TO 53/BANG/2018 PAGE 11 OF 11 COPY TO: 1. REVENUE 2. ASSESSEE 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.