THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEE'S CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, AJMER

ITA 221/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3638 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM RAI DCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: VINOD GANGWAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Retrospective amendment; Time period of passing order; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 133(6); 201(1); 80P

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;K NO ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 221/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10. THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CO - OP. BANK LTD., L-86, RAILWAY BANGLA, HAZARI BAGH, BEAWAR ROAD, AJMER. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS AJMER. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. /TAN NO. JDHT 02234 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VINOD GANGWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. POONAM RAI (DCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 19.06.2018. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/06/2018. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15 TH DECEMBER, 2017 OF LD. CIT (A), AJMER ARISING FROM T HE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 201 AND 201(1A) OF THE IT ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1.1. FOR THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WAS NOT J USTIFIED IN NOT ADMITTING (DISMISSING) THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS INORDINATE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEA L, WHEREAS IN FACT THERE WAS NO DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ON 31.03.2016 A ND THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 29.04.2016. 1.2. FOR THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAD NOT CON SIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AND 2 ITA NO. 221/JP/2018 THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER . PASSING OF ORDER U/S 201/1A ON 29.03.2016 WAS TIME BARRED, BAD IN LAW AND THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 1.3. FOR THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAD NOT CON SIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT FORM 15H IS ACCEPT ABLE WHERE AMOUNT OF INTEREST EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT WHICH IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INCOME TAX IN LIEU OF PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 194A(1C). 2. FOR THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES RIGHT TO ALTER ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OR TO PUT ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT A NY TIME PRIOR TO OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY BANK AND E NGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING WHICH INCLUDES ACCEPTING DEPOSITS FROM ITS MEMBERS, PROVIDING LOANS AND OTHER BANKING SERVICES TO ITS MEMBERS. THE AO NOTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST TO NON-MEMBERS ON FDRS DURING THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION WITHOUT DEDUCTING TDS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO INITIATED THE P ROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 201 AND 201(1A) BY HOLDING THE ASSESSEE AS ASSESSEE-IN-DEFA ULT IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST PAID TO NON-MEMBERS WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TDS. AS R EGARDS THE INTEREST PAID TO THE AJMER COOPERATIVE THRIFT SAVING SOCIETY, THE AO ALL OWED THE SAME AS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P AND, THEREFORE, THOUGH THE SAID AMOUNT WAS CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 201 BUT BENEFIT OF SECTION 80P WAS AL LOWED BY THE AO. THUS THE INTEREST PAID TO NON-MEMBER INDIVIDUAL OF RS. 3,44, 816/- WAS CONSIDERED BY THE AO WHILE PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 201 AND 201(1 A) AND DETERMINED THE SHORT FALL OF THE TAX LIABILITY OF RS. 34,482/- ON WHICH THE A O HAS ALSO COMPUTED THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 201(1A) AMOUNTING TO RS. 33,103/- AND HENCE THE AO HAS RAISED TOTAL DEMAND OF RS. 67,585/-. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED TH E ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE LD. CIT (A) AND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS TA KEN FORM NO. 15G/H FROM THE 3 ITA NO. 221/JP/2018 THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER . RECIPIENT OF THE INTEREST, THEN THE ASSESSEE WAS UN DER NO OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TDS ON PAYMENT OF INTEREST. THE LD. CIT (A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS ON THE GROUND OF BARR ED BY LIMITATION. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WITHIN TH E PRESCRIBED PERIOD OF LIMITATION. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTIO N 201/201(1A) DATED 29 TH MARCH, 2016 WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 1 ST APRIL, 2016 AND, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29 TH APRIL, 2016 IS WELL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIO N FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTEN TION, THE LD. A/R HAS FILED THE COPY OF LETTER RECEIPT REGISTER OF THE POSTAL DEPARTMEN T AT PAGE 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THUS THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT APPLYING HIS MIND ON THE FACT THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. FURTHER, ON MERIT, THE LD. A /R HAS SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED FORM NO. 15G/H, THEN AS PER T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 197(1A) IF THE DEDUCTEE HAS GIVEN A DECLARATION THA T HIS INCOME INCLUDING THE RECEIPT IN QUESTION IS NOT LIABLE TO TAX AS THE TOTAL INCOM E WOULD BE NIL, THEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO DEDUCT TDS ON SUCH PAYMENT. THE LD . A/R HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO DATED 29 TH MARCH, 2016 IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201(3) OF THE IT ACT AS EXISTED AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE G UJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF TATA TELESERVICES VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 385 ITR 497 (GUJ.) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WHILE CONSIDERING THIS ISSUE FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS HELD THAT THE LIMITATION FOR PASSING THE ORDER UNDE R SECTION 201 EXPIRED ON 31 ST 4 ITA NO. 221/JP/2018 THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER . MARCH, 2012 AND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED THEREA FTER IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE AMENDMENT BY FINANCE ACT, 2014 WAS AFTER THE LIMITATION PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 201(3) OF THE ACT WAS EXPIRED. THEREFORE, THE SAID EXTENSION OF LIMITATION BY THE AMENDMENT V IDE FINANCE ACT, 2014 IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE. THE LD. A/R HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE SERIES OF OTHER DECISIONS ON THIS POINT. 3.1 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF LIMITATION FOR PASS ING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 201/201(1A) WAS NOT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE T HE LD. CIT (A) AND, THEREFORE, SUCH ISSUE CANNOT BE RAISED WITHOUT SEEKING THE LEA VE OF THE TRIBUNAL. 3.2. IN REJOINDER, THE LD. A/R HAS REFERRED TO THE SUBMISSIONS RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AS REPRODUCED AT PAGES 3 & 4 OF THE LD. CIT (A)S ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY RAISED THIS ISSUE OF LIMITATI ON BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF TATA TELESERVICES VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. (SUPRA). TH US THE ISSUE WAS VERY MUCH RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY LIMITATIO N AND THERE IS AN INORDINATE DELAY. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) IN PARA 3 A RE AS UNDER :- 3.0. THUS, FROM THE REPORT OF THE AO, IT IS CLER THAT THE NOTICE OF DEMAND WAS SENT TO THE APPELLANT ON 29.03.2016 BY S PEED POST. AS PER SECTION 249(2), THE APPEAL HAS TO BE PRESENTED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF 5 ITA NO. 221/JP/2018 THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER . DATE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF DEMAND. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED U/S 249(2). THER E IS AN INORDINATE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE ANY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED U/S 249(2). HENC E, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS NOT ADMITTED. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 201/201(1A) IS DATED 29 TH MARCH, 2016 AND THE APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A) WAS ALSO UNDISPUTEDLY FILED ON 29.04.2016. THEREFORE, FROM THESE TWO DATES ITSELF IT CANNOT BE A CASE OF INORDINATE DELAY AS OBSERVED BY LD. CIT (A). THUS THE LD. CIT (A)S DISMISSAL OF APPEAL IN LIMINI IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS APPARENT ON RECORD WHICH ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. IT SHOWS THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. FURTHER, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY AO UNDER SECTION 201/201(1 A) ON 1 ST APRIL, 2016 AS PER THE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIPT REGISTER OF POSTAL D EPARTMENT. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED ON 29 TH APRIL, 2016 IS WELL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATIO N PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 249 OF THE IT ACT. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER O F LD. CIT (A) ON THE ISSUE OF LIMITATION AND HOLD THAT THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE TH E LD. CIT (A) IS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND IS A VALID APPEAL. 5. AS REGARDS THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER PASSED UNDE R SEC. 201/201(1A) OF IT ACT, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY RAISED THE ISSUE OF LIMITATION FOR PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER SECTION 201/201(1A) OF THE ACT AS IT IS APPARENT FROM THE SUBMISSIONS REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN PARA 2 .1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND PARTICULARLY IN PARA 1.3 OF THE SUBMISSION AT PAGE 3 OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) AS UNDER :- 6 ITA NO. 221/JP/2018 THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER . 1.3. THE RELEVANT PAYMENT OF INTEREST IS FOR FINA NCIAL YEAR 2008-09 (ASST. YEAR 2009-10). FIRST LETTER FOR CALLING FOR INFORMATION/S 133(6) WAS ISSUED ON 23.02.2016, WHEREAS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 201/201A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 FOR NON/SHORT DEDUCTION OF TD S U/S 194A WAS ISSUED ON 16.03.2016 AND ORDER U/S 201/201A OF THE I.T. ACT WAS PASSED ON 29.03.2016. THEREFORE, THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS ORDER PASSED U/S 201/201A WAS TIME BARRED AS THE SAME WAS PASSED AFTER A PERIOD OF SIX YEARS AND 10 MONTHS AF TER ENDING OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 IN WHICH INTEREST WAS PAID. PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201(3) SAY THAT :- NO ORDER SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) DEEMIN G 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 INDIA, AT ANY TIME AFTER THE EXP IRY OF ( I ) TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE STATEMENT IS FILED IN A CASE WHERE THE STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN SECTION 200 HAS BEEN FILED; ( II ) FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR I N WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE OR CREDIT IS GIVEN, IN ANY OTHER CASE : 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. THEREFORE, AS PER ABOVE PROVISIONS THE ORDER U/S 20 1/201A FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 SHOULD HAVE BEEN PASSED UPTO 31.03.2013, WHEREAS IN APPELLANTS CASE PROCEEDING WAS INITIATE D ON 23.02.2016 AND ORDER WAS PASSED ON 29.03.2016, THEREFORE INITI ATIONOF PROCEEDINGS AND THE ORDER PASSED U/S 201/201A IS BARRED BY LIMI TATION, BAD IN LAW AND THEREFORE, IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. TO SUPPORT OUT ABOVE CONTENTIONS WE ALSO RELY ON TH E FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- (I) TATA TELESERVICES VS UNION OF INDIA 385 ITR 497 IN WHICH HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS HELD THT SECTION 20 1(3), AS 7 ITA NO. 221/JP/2018 THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER . AMENDED BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014 SHALL NOT BE AP PLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY AND THEREFORE, NO ORDER UNDER SECTI ON 201(1) CAN BE PASSED FOR WHICH LIMITATION HAS ALREADY EXPIRED PRIOR TO AMENDED S. 201(3); PROCEEDINGS FOR FINANCIAL YER 20 07-08 AND 2008-09 HAD BECOME TIME-BARRED AND /OR LIMITATION U NDER S. 201(3)(I) HAD ALREADY EXPIRED ON 31 ST MARCH, 2011 AND 31 ST MARCH 2012, RESPECTIVELY, MUCH PRIOR TO THE AMENDME NT IN SECTION 201 AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2014 AND THE REFORE IMPUGNED NOTICES/SUMMONS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND TH E SAME DESERVE TO BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THUS THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE ISSUE OF LIMITATION AN D ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF T ATA TELESERVICES VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. (SUPRA) AS WELL AS OTHER DECISIONS. 6. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 201/201(1A) ON 29.03.2016 IS AFTER SIX YEARS FROM T HE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09. THE LIMITATION FOR PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 201/ 201(1A) IS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 201(3) OF THE ACT AS EXISTED AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME AS UNDER :- 201. 12 [(1) WHERE ANY PERSON, INCLUDING THE PRINCIPAL OFFI CER OF A COMPANY, ( A ) WHO IS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT ANY SUM IN ACCORDANCE 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 THI S 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 S UCH TAX: 8 ITA NO. 221/JP/2018 THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER . PROVIDED THAT NO PENALTY SHALL BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 221 FROM SUCH PERSON, UNLESS THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED T HAT SUCH PERSON, WITHOUT GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASONS, HAS FAILED TO DEDUCT AND PA Y SUCH TAX.] [(1A) 14 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1), IF ANY SUCH PERSON, PRINCIPAL OFFICER OR COMPANY AS IS REFERRED TO IN THAT SUB-SECTION DOES NOT DEDUCT 15 [THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE TAX] OR AFTER DEDUCTI NG FAILS TO PAY THE TAX AS REQUIRED BY OR UNDER THIS ACT, HE OR IT SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY SIMPLE INTEREST AT 16 [ONE PER CENT FOR EVERY MONTH OR PART OF A MONTH] O N THE AMOUNT OF SUCH TAX FROM THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH TAX WAS DEDUCT IBLE TO THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH TAX IS ACTUALLY PAID 17 [AND SUCH INTEREST SHALL BE PAID BEFORE FURNISHING 17A [ THE STATEMENT ] IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 200 ].] (2) WHERE THE TAX HAS NOT BEEN PAID AS AFORESAID AF TER IT IS DEDUCTED, 18 [THE AMOUNT OF THE TAX TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT OF SIMPLE INTEREST THEREON REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1A)] SHALL BE A CHARGE UPON ALL THE ASSETS OF THE PERSON, OR THE COMPANY, AS THE CASE MAY BE, REF ERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1). THE FOLLOWING SUB-SECTIONS (3) AND (4) SHALL BE INS ERTED AFTER 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) DE EMING 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 INDIA, 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 REFERRED TO IN SECTION 200 HAS BEEN FILED; ( II ) FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR I N WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE OR CREDIT IS GIVEN, IN ANY OTHER CASE : 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. (4) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-CLAUSE ( II ) OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 153 AND OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 153 SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY, APPLY TO THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN SUB-SECTION (3). THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT VIDE F INANCE ACT, 2014 THE LIMITATION FOR PASSING AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 201/201(1) WAS FOUR YEAR FROM THE END OF THE 9 ITA NO. 221/JP/2018 THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER . FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE OR CREDIT I S GIVEN. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS IN THE CATEGORY WHERE STATEMENT WAS NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, EVEN IF THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR PASSING THE OR DER IS TAKEN AS FOUR YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE PAYMENT WAS MADE, THE SAID LIMITATION EXPIRED ON 31 ST MARCH, 2012. HENCE THE LIMITATION EXTENDED BY THE AMENDMENT VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2014 ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TATA TELESERVICES VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. (SUPRA) WHILE CONSIDERING THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS HELD IN PARA 14 TO 15 AS UNDER :- 14. NOW, SO FAR AS RELIANCE PLACED UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AHMEDABAD MFG. & CALICO PRINTING CO. LTD . ( SUPRA ) AS WELL AS ANOTHER DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF JYOTI TRADERS ( SUPRA ), BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF TH E REVENUE IS CONCERNED, ON FACTS AND CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS WHICH CAME TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE AFOR ESAID DECISIONS, NONE OF THE AFORESAID DECISIONS SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND. IN THE CASE OF JYOTI TRADERS ( SUPRA ), THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WAS CONSIDERING THE PROVISO TO SECTION 21 WHICH SPECIFI CALLY PROVIDED THAT ASSESSMENT AND REASSESSMENT MAY BE MADE AFTER EXPIR ATION OF THE PERIOD AFORESAID BUT NOT AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF 8 YEARS A ND FROM THE END OF SUCH YEAR. IN THE AFORESAID PROVISO IT EXPRESSLY ENABLED ASSES SMENT WHERE PERIOD EXPIRES AND IT OPERATES UPON EXPIRY OF LIMITATION PERIOD. T HEREFORE, THE SAID DECISION SHALL NOT BE APPLICABLE CONSIDERING THE WORDINGS US ED IN SECTION 201 AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2014, MORE PARTICULARLY WHE N IT HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY PROVIDED AND/OR MADE PROSPECTIVE W.E.F. 1/4/2010. 14.1 NOW, SO FAR AS THE RELIANCE PLACED UPON THE DECISI ON OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BISWANATH JHUNJHUNWALA ( SUPRA ) BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS CONCE RNED, CONSIDERING THE LANGUAGE USED IN THE NOTIFICATION WHICH FELT FOR CO NSIDERATION BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN PARA 12 AND 13 AND CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201 AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2014 AND THE STATEMENT AND OBJECT WHIL E AMENDING SECTION 201, AS REFERRED TO HEREINABOVE, THE SAID DECISION SHALL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND. 15. CONSIDERING THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HA ND AND MORE PARTICULARLY 10 ITA NO. 221/JP/2018 THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER . CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WHILE AMENDING SECTION 20 1 BY FINANCE ACT, 2014, IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE SAME SHALL BE APPLICABLE W.E.F. 1/10/2014 AND EVEN CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT PROCEE DINGS FOR F.Y. 2007-08 AND 2008-09 HAD BECOME TIME BARRED AND/OR FOR THE AFORE SAID FINANCIAL YEARS, LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 201(3)(I) OF THE ACT HAD A LREADY EXPIRED ON 31/3/2011 AND 31/3/2012, RESPECTIVELY, MUCH PRIOR TO THE AMEN DMENT 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 THE FACT THAT WHEREVER LEGISLATURE WANTED TO GIVE RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT SO SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED WHILE AMENDING SECTION 201(3) (II) OF THE ACT AS WAS AMENDED BY FI NANCE ACT, 2012 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1/4/2010, IT IS TO BE HEL D THAT SECTION 201(3), AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT NO.2 OF 2014 SHALL NOT BE AP PLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY AND THEREFORE, NO ORDER UNDER SECTION 201(I) OF THE ACT CAN BE PASSED FOR WHICH LIMITATION HAD ALREADY EXPIRED PRIOR TO AMENDED SEC TION 201(3) AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT NO.2 OF 2014. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE IMPUGNED NOTICES / SUMMONSES CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME DESERVE TO BE QUASHED AND SET ASIDE AND WRIT OF PROHIBITION, AS PRAYED FOR, DESER VES TO BE GRANTED. ACCORDINGLY, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE G UJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TATA TELESERVICES VS. UOI (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 201/201(1A) DATED 29 TH MARCH, 2016 IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 201(3) OF THE ACT AS EXISTED AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME AND HENCE THE SAID ORDER IS INVALID AND LIABLE TO BE QU ASHED. ACCORDINGLY, WE QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 201/201(1A). 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/06/2 018. SD/- SD/- ( FOE FLAG ;KNO ) ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 21/06/2018. DAS/ 11 ITA NO. 221/JP/2018 THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER . VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATI VE BANK LTD., AJMER. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ITO, TDS, AJMER. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 221/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 12 ITA NO. 221/JP/2018 THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., AJMER .