M/s Karnataka State Cricket Association , Bangalore V. Assistant Commissioner of Income TAx TDS Circle-2(1), Bangalore

ITA 1375/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3047 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Retrospective amendment; Time period of passing order
• Section: 194C; 201(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I TA NO. 1375/BANG/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 M/S. KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, M. CHINNASWAMY STADIUM, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. TAN/PAN: BLRK1 3462B / AAATT 2540E VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI NARENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE RE SPON DENT BY : SHRI C.H. SUNDAR RAO, CIT (DR - I )(ITAT), BENGALURU. DATE OF HEARING : 28. 0 8 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 .09.2018 O R D E R PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1375/BANG/2018 IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.2.2018 OF CIT(APPEALS)-13, BENGALURU RELATING TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ORGANIZATION FORMED FOR THE PURP OSE OF PROMOTING CRICKET IN KARNATAKA STATE. THE ASSESSEE IS REGISTE RED U/S.12A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT). IN THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2011-12, THE AO NOTICED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON A SUM OF RS.5,43,14,267 W HICH COMPRISED OF A ITA NO. 1375/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 10 SUM OF RS.4,90,14,267 ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE PRO VISIONS MADE ON 31.3.2011 AND ANOTHER SUM OF RS.53,00,000 ON POLICE BANDOBAST CHARGES. A SUM OF RS.4,90,14,267/- AND RS.53,00,000/- WAS DI SALLOWED U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2011-12. BASED ON THE ADDITION M ADE IN THE ASSESSMENT, NOTICE U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN DATED 26.2.2015 F OR FY 2010-11 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. 3. SEC.201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT READS THUS:- CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO DEDUCT OR PAY. 201.(1) WHERE ANY PERSON, INCLUDING THE PRINCIPAL O FFICER OF A COMPANY, (A) WHO IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT ANY SUM IN ACCORDAN CE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; OR (B) REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1A) OF SECTION 1 92, 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 SEC TION 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 ITA NO. 1375/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 10 AFTER DEDUCTING FAILS TO PAY THE TAX AS REQUIRED BY OR UNDER THIS ACT, HE OR IT SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY SIMPLE INTERES T AT ONE PER CENT FOR EVERY MONTH OR PART OF A MONTH ON THE AMOUNT OF SUCH TAX FROM THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE TO T HE DATE ON WHICH SUCH TAX IS ACTUALLY PAID AND SUCH INTEREST S HALL BE PAID BEFORE FURNISHING THE STATEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200]. 4. THE FOLLOWING SUB-SECTIONS (3) WAS INSERTED AFTE R SUB-SECTION (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 STATEMEN T REFERRED TO IN SECTION 200 HAS BEEN FILED; (II) FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEA R IN WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE OR CREDIT IS GIVEN, IN ANY OTHER CA SE : PROVIDED THAT SUCH ORDER FOR A FINANCIAL YEAR COMME NCING 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. ITA NO. 1375/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 10 6. IT WAS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT THAT IT WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON PROVISION MADE FOR EXPENSES AND POLICE BANDOBAST CH ARGES. THE STAND WAS REJECTED BY THE AO AND HE TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT AND DETERMINED TAX LIABILITY AND INTEREST U /S.201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT AS FOLLOWS:- PARTICULARS SECTION AMOUNT (RS.) TDS DEDUCTIBLE U/S SEC 201(1) (RS.) TOTAL INTEREST U/S 201(1A) (RS.) TOTAL DEMAND (RS.) CONTRACTS, MAINTENANCE, ADVERTISEMENT ETC 194C 39614744 787479 31850 819329 POLICE BANDOBAST CHARGES 194C 5300000 1060000 1245500 2305500 PAYMENTS TO THE PROFESSIONALS 194J 8342415 834242 56502 890744 TOTAL 53257159 2681721 1333852 4015573 TOTAL SUM PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE : RS. 26,81,721 ADD: INTEREST U/S 201 (1A) : RS. 13,33,852 TOTAL : RS. 40,15,543 LESS: PAID : RS. 16,21,721 BALANCE PAYABLE : RS. 23,93,852 7. BEFORE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HA D FILED TDS FOR THE RELEVANT FYS AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN BELOW:- ITA NO. 1375/BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 10 SL. NO. QUARTER TDS RETURN FILING DATE 1. QUARTER - I 09.07.2010 2. QUARTER - II 04.01.2011 3. QUARTER - III 21.03.2011 4. QUARTER - IV 30.06.2011 8. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SE C.201(3)(I) OF THE ACT AS IT STOOD PRIOR TO SUBSTITUTED PROVISIONS OF SEC.201(3) BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014 W.E.F.1-10-2014 WOULD APPLY TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (3)(I) OF SEC.201(1) OF THE ACT AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO ITS SUBSTITUTION BY THE FINANCE (N O.2) ACT, 2014 W.E.F. 1.10.2014, ANY ACTION IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE WH O HAS FILED A RETURN OF TDS U/S.200 OF THE ACT HAS TO BE PASSED WITHIN A PE RIOD OF 2 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN OF TD S U/S.200 WAS FILED. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE TIME LIMIT FOR PASSIN G AN ORDER 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 EXPIRE TWO YEARS 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. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO DATED 26.2.2015 WAS I NVALID AS THE TIME LIMIT FOR PASSING ORDERS FOR THE RELEVANT FYS U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT HAD ALREADY EXPIRED. 9. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER DISMISSED THE PLEA OF THE ASS ESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE SUBSTITUTED PROVISIONS OF SEC.201(3) BY TH E FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014 W.E.F. 1.10.2014, WOULD APPLY AND THEREFORE TH E ORDER U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT IS WITHIN TIME. THE FOLLOWING W ERE THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. ITA NO. 1375/BANG/2018 PAGE 6 OF 10 7. LIMITATION (GROUND 3) THE APPELLANT IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE ORDER IS BARR ED BY LIMITATION AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ORDER HAS BEE N PASSED ON 11.09.2015. SECTION 201(3), AS IT STOOD AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- (3) NO ORDER SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) DEEMING A PERSON TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR F AILURE TO DEDUCT THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE TAX FROM A PERS ON RESIDENT IN INDIA, AT ANY TIME AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SEVEN YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH P AYMENT IS MADE OR CREDIT IS GIVEN. ACCORDING TO THE DETAILS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN THE FY 2011-12. THUS, TIME FO R PASSING THE ORDER U/S. 201(1) PERSISTS UPTO 31.03.2019. AC CORDINGLY, THE ORDER PASSED ON 11.09.2015 IS WELL WITHIN THE LIMIT ATION. THIS GROUND IS THEREFORE DISMISSED . 10. EVEN ON MERITS THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. 11. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESS EE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LEARNED DR ON THE ISSUE OF LIMITAT ION. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED SUBMISSIONS MAD E BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TATA TELESERVICES VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 38 5 ITR 497 (GUJ.) WHEREIN ON IDENTICAL FACTS THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.201 (1) & 201(1A) WERE HELD TO BE BARRED BY TIME ON THE REASONING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.201(3) AS SUBSTITUTED BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) AC T, 2014, W.E.F. 1-10- ITA NO. 1375/BANG/2018 PAGE 7 OF 10 2014 ARE APPLICABLE ONLY PROSPECTIVELY AND IN RESPE CT OF FINANCIAL YEARS PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT IN THE LAW, THE PERIOD OF LI MITATION WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.201(3) PRIOR TO THE AFORES AID SUBSTITUTION. THE LEARNED DR REITERATED THE STAND OF THE REVENUE THAT THE SUBSTITUTED PROVISIONS OF THE LAW WOULD APPLY. HE ALSO SUBMITT ED THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.201(3)(I) OF THE PROVISIONS PRIOR TO SUBSTITUTI ON WILL NOT APPLY AS THE RETURN OF TDS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT WITHIN TIME AND THEREFORE HAD TO BE TREATED AS NON EST IN LAW. 13. 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 SHALL NOT BE APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY AND THEREFO RE, NO ORDER UNDER SECTION 201(I) OF THE ACT CAN BE PASSED FOR WHICH LIMITATIO N HAD ALREADY EXPIRED PRIOR TO AMENDED SECTION 201(3) AS AMENDED BY FINAN CE ACT NO.2 OF 2014. THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE GUJARAT HI GH COURT WAS THAT THE PETITIONER IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING TELE-COMMUNICATION SERVICES AND SELLING SERVICE PRODUCTS ACROSS THE CO UNTRY. ACCORDING TO THE PETITIONER, IT IS GOVERNED BY TELE-COMMUNICATION IN TERCONNECTION USAGE CHARGES REGULATION, 2003 ISSUED BY TRAI UNDER THE T RAI ACT, 1997. THE PETITIONER FILED ITS TDS STATEMENT REGULARLY FOR THE F.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 FOR RESPECTIVE QUARTERS. THE PETITIONER WAS SERVED WITH THE SUMMONS DATED 09/10/2014 REQUIRING PERSONAL ATTENDANCE IN CONNECT ION WITH PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR A.Y. 2008-2009 AND 200 9-2010 SEEKING DETAILS REGARDING TDS FOR F.Y. 2007-2008 AND 2008-2 009. THE PETITIONER MADE SUBMISSIONS DATED 15/12/2014 AND CONTENDED THA T THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SOUGHT TO BE INITIATED ARE TIME BARRED IN VIEW OF SECTION 201(3) ITA NO. 1375/BANG/2018 PAGE 8 OF 10 AS IT STOOD AT THE END OF THE RESPECTIVE FY 2007-20 08 AND 2008-2009. ON A WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO QUASH THE PR OCEEDINGS AS BARRED BY LIMITATION, THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD THA T IT IS CLEAR THAT EARLIER SECTION 201(3) AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 AMEN DED ON 28/5/2012 WAS SPECIFICALLY MADE APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY W. E.F. 1/4/2012, WHEREBY LIMITATION PERIOD WAS SUBSTITUTED FROM FOUR YEARS T O SIX YEARS FOR PASSING ORDERS WHERE TDS STATEMENT HAD NOT BEEN FILED. HOWE VER, SECTION 201(3) AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT NO. 2 OF 2014, AS MENTION ED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF THE FINANCE BILL NO.2 OF 2014 IS STAT ED TO HAVE EFFECT FROM 1ST OCTOBER, 2014. THUS, WHEREVER THE PARLIAMENT / LEGISLATURE WANTED TO MAKE PROVISIONS APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY, IT HAS BEEN SO PROVIDED. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT REFERRED TO THE CASE OF S.S. GADGIL AIR 1965 SC 720 , WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAD OBSERVED AN D HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION OR CLEAR IMPLICATIO N, LEGISLATURE DOES NOT INTEND TO ATTRIBUTE TO THE AMENDING PROVISION A GRE ATER RETROSPECTIVITY THAN IS EXPRESSLY MENTIONED, NOR TO AUTHORIZE THE INCOME TA X OFFICER TO COMMENCE PROCEEDINGS WHICH BEFORE THE NEW ACT CAME INTO FORC E HAD UPON THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD PROVIDED, BECOME BARRED. THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT ALSO NOTICED THAT SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF J. P. JANI, INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE IV, WARD-G, AHMEDABAD AND ANOTHER, VERSUS INDUPRASAD DEVESHANKER BHATT, REPORTED IN AIR 1969 S.C. 778 AND WHILE INTERPRETING SECTION 297(2)(D)(II) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE HONB LE SUPREME 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 SUP REME 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 ITA NO. 1375/BANG/2018 PAGE 9 OF 10 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 AMEN DED 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 BE PASSED FOR WHICH LIMITATION HAD ALREADY EXPIRED PRIOR TO AMENDMENT TO SECTION 201(3) BY FINANCE ACT NO.2 OF 2014. 14. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE BEFORE US THAT THE PROCEED INGS U/S.201(1) OF THE ACT WERE BARRED BY TIME PRIOR TO AMENDMENT TO SEC.2 01(3) BY THE FINANCE ACT NO.2 OF 2014. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT ORDER PASSED FOR FY 2010-11 U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE A CT WERE BARRED BY LIMITATION AND CONSEQUENTLY DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. WE FIND MERITS IN THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. WE THEREFORE ALLOW THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. 15. AS FAR AS THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED DR THAT T HE RETURN OF TDS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BELATED AND THEREFORE NON EST IN LAW AND THEREFORE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.201(3)(I) OF THE ACT PRIOR TO SUBSTITUTION W.E.F. 1-10- 2014 WILL APPLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT A PLAIN RE ADING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.201(3) OF THE ACT AS IT EXISTED PRIOR TO ITS SU BSTITUTION 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 SECT ION 200 HAS BEEN FILED; (II ) IN ANY OTHER CASE. THERE WAS NO THIRD CATEG ORY OF CASE WHERE A ITA NO. 1375/BANG/2018 PAGE 10 OF 10 STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN SEC.200 IS FILED BELATEDLY . THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED DR IS THEREFORE DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( A.K. GARODIA ) ( N.V. VASUDEVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. / D ESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 . GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.