Income Tax Officer-TDS-II, Kanpur V. M/s Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation, Kanpur

ITA 510/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4307 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 201(1)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.510/LKW/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.510/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)-II, KANPUR. VS. M/S UTTAR PRADESH FINANCIAL CORPN 14/88, CIVIL LINES, KANPUR. PAN:AAAJU0012A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER P. K. BANSAL, A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, KANPUR DATED 08/04/2015 RELATED TO ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06 BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DEMAND AMOUNTING TO RS.62,63,98,214/- FOR NOT M AKING TDS ON INTEREST PAID ON SLR AND NON SLR DEPOSITS, A S PER PROVISIONS OF SEC.194A, IGNORING THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SEC.201 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND IN HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS TIME BARRED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ENTIRE ADDITION WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FACTS OF THE CASE WITH THE CASES RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE MENTIONING VARI OUS CASE LAWS, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE SAID CASE LAWS RELATE TO THE PERIOD APPELLANT BY DR. A. K. SINGH, CIT, D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI A VIKAS GARG, F.C.A. DATE OF HEARING 25/05/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27/07/2016 I.T.A. NO.510/LKW/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 2 PRIOR TO 01/04/2010, HENCE THESE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. 3. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN RELYING ON THE CASE LAW IN THE CASE OF MAHI NDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. VS. DCIT 365 ITR 560 IGNORING THE FAC T THAT IN THE SAID CASE PROVISION OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTI ON 201 WAS NOT THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. 2. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE RE VENUE IS THAT WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U /S 201 OF THE ACT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE IS STATE GOVERNMENT CORPORATION ENGAGED IN PROVIDING FINANCE FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY AND FOR THAT PURPOSE ALSO RESORTS TO BORRO WINGS. A SURVEY WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ON THE PRE MISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 16/10/2005 WHEREIN IT WAS NOTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOURCE U/S 193 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE, ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT ON 09/02/2007. THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILE D SUBMISSIONS ON 20/03/2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIE D WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, HE PASSED AN ORDER U /S 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT ON 10/03/2011 AND CREATED A DEMAND OF RS.12 ,63,98,214/- IN RESPECT OF NON DEDUCTION / SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX A ND INTEREST THEREON. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND T HE CIT(A) AFTER CALLING FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, QUASHED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER DATED 10/03/2011 PASSED U/S 201(1)/201(1A) AS BARRED BY L IMITATION BY HOLDING AS UNDER: I.T.A. NO.510/LKW/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 3 I HAVE PERUSED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSE SSEE CORPORATION, THE REMAND REPORT DATED 20-03-2015 AND 26-03- 2015 OF THE ITO (TDS-II), KANPUR AND THE REPLIES OF THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION IN RESPONSE TO THE REMAND REPO RTS. THE ASSESSES CASE IS THAT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE IN STANT CASE UNDER SECTIONS 201(1) AND 201(A) WERE INITIATED ON 09-02- 2007 AND ORDER U/S 201(1)/201(1A) WAS PASSED ON 10- 03- 2011 AFTER A LAPSE OF OVER 3 YEARS AND 11 MONTHS FR OM END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE A FORESAID SECTIONS WAS INITIATED AS ALSO AFTER A LAPSE OF OVE R 5 YEARS AND 11 MONTHS FROM THE CLOSE OF THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10-03-2011 IS BA RRED BY LIMITATION AND IS LIABLE TO BE STRUCK DOWN AS VOID AB INITIO. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECIS IONS:- 1. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA-LTD. V. DCIT 313 ITR (AT) 263 WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH CO URT CITED AT 365 ITR 560. 2. CIT V. HUTCHISON ESSAR TELECOM LTD. 322 ITR 230 (DE LHI) 3. ACIT VS CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICE (212) 28 TAXMANN.CO M 168 (ITAT DELHI). 4. RAYMOND WOOLEN MILLS LTD. V. ITO 57 ITD 536 (I.T.A. T. MUMBAI). 5. SAHARA AIRLINES LTD. V. DCIT (2002) 83 ITD 11 (DELH I). 6. MOHQMMAD KAVI MOHAMMAD AMIN VS. FATABAI IBRAHIM (1997) 6 SCC 71 7. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA V. CITADEL FINE PHARMACEUTICAL (1990) 184 ITR 467 (SC) 8. SANTOSH KUMAR SHIVGONDA PATIL V. BALASAHEB TULARAM SHEAVALE (2009) 9 SCC 352 9. STATE OF GUJRAT V. PATEL PATEL RAGHAV NATHA AIR 196 9 SUPREME COURT 1297. 10.STATE OF PUNJAB V. BHATINDA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIV E MILK PRODUCER'S UNION LIMITED (2007) 11 SCC 363 11.ISWARA BHAT V. CIT (1993) 200 ITR 238 (KER). THE TDS OFFICER HAS NO WHERE DENIED THE FACTS THAT THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE INSTANT CASE UNDER SECTIONS 201(1) AND 201(A) WERE INITIATED ON 09-02-2 007 AND ORDER U/S201(1)/ 201(1A) WAS PASSED ON 10-03-2011 AFTER A I.T.A. NO.510/LKW/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 4 LAPSE OF OVER 3 YEARS AND 11 MONTHS FROM END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE AFORESAID SECTI ONS WAS INITIATED AS ALSO AFTER A LAPSE OF OVER 5 YEARS AND 11 MONTHS FROM THE CLOSE OF THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE AO IS THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10-03-2011 WAS PASSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROV ISO TO SECTION 201(3). HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT AT TH E TIME THE DECISIONS, AS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, WERE RENDERED PROVISO TO SECTION 201(3) WAS NOT INS ERTED WHICH WAS ONLY INSERTED BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009 W.E.F. 1- 04-2010. I FIND THAT IN THE DECISION CITED BY THE ASSESSEE C ORPORATION IN THE CASE OF MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD. V. DCIT 313 ITR (AT) 263 WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIG H COURT CITED AT 365 ITR 560. IT IS CLEARLY UPHELD BY THE HIGH COURT THAT THE MAXIMUM TIME LIMIT FOR PASSING THE O RDER UNDER SECTION 201(1) OR SECTION 201(1A) IS THE SAME AS PR ESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 153(2) BEING ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 2 01(1) ARE INIFIATED. THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF ISWARA BHAT V. CIT (1993) 200 ITR 238 HAVE VERY CLEARLY LA ID DOWN THAT:- 'IT IS TRITE LAW THAT STATUTORY POWERS MUST BE EXER CISED BONAFIDE, REASONABLY, WITHOUT NEGLIGENCE, AND FOR T HE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE CONFERRED. EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE, THE REPOSITORY OF THE POWER SHOULD INITIATE THE PROCEED INGS WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME; BY THE SAME TOKEN EVEN FO R THE COMPLETION OF THE PROCEEDINGS, THE SAME LOGIC SHOULD APPLY AND THE FINAL ORDER SHOULD BE PASSED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A TIME LIMIT IN THE STATUTE CONCERNED. BOTH 'TERMINI' ST AND ON THE SAME FOOTING. IF SUO MOTO REVISIONAL PROCEEDING S CAN BE INVOKED ONLY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, BY TH E SAME LOGIC, THE PROCEEDINGS THEMSELVES SHOULD BE RENDERED OR PASSED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME. THE REPOSITORY OF STATUTORY POWER SHOULD BE REASONABLE, THAT MEANS THAT 'DAMOCLES' SWORD SHOULD NOT HANG ENDLESSLY, AT THE CAPRICE OF ANY STATUTORY AUTHORIT Y. I.T.A. NO.510/LKW/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 5 EVEN IN THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE HON'B LE APEX COURT WHICH HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION, THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT S TATUTORY POWERS SHOULD BE EXERCISED WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME IF NO TIME LIMIT IS PRESCRIBED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND DECISIONS AS RELIED UPON AND DISCUSSED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND REPLIES OF THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION, SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO THE REMAND REPORTS, I AM INCLINED TO HOLD, THAT THE IMPUG NED ORDER DATED 10-03-2011 PASSED U/S201(1)/201(1A) WAS BA RRED BY LIMITATION. FURTHER I ALSO AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION THAT IN RESPECT OF FY 2004-05 NO TIME-LIMIT WAS PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT FOR PASSING AN ORDER U/S 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT AND IT WAS ONLY W.E.F. AY 2010-11 THAT SECTION 201(3) OF THE A CT WAS INSERTED BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT 2009 LAYING DOWN THE LIMITATION FOR PASSING THE ORDER U/S201(1)/201(1A) OF THE ACT. THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF MAHINDRA AN D MAHINDRA LTD. V. DCIT SUPRA WAS DELIVERED ON 9 TH APRIL 2009 AND UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT VIDE DECISION DATED 3 RD JULY 2014 MUCH AFTER THE INSERTION OF SECTION 201(3 ) OF THE ACT AND UPON CONSIDERING THE SECTION 201(3) OF THE ACT THEREBY CLEARLY ESTABLISHING THAT THE INSERTION OF THE SECT ION 201(3) IN NO WAY EFFECTS THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR EARLIER YEARS. SIMILARLY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. HUTCHISON ESSAR TELECOM LTD. 322 ITR 230 WAS RENDERED ON 15 TH APRIL 2010 MUCH AFTER INSERTION OF SECTION 201(3) IN THE I.T. TAX ACT 1961, AND RELATES TO AY 2002-03. THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI W AS IN RELATION TO PERIOD OF LIMITATION IN INITIATING PROC EEDINGS U/S 201(1)/201(1A) OF THE I.T. TAX ACT 1961. IN THE CA SE OF ACIT V. CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICE (212) 28 TAXMANN.COM 1 68, ORDER U/S 201(1)/201(1A) WAS PASSED ON 27/04/2010 FOR FY 2002- 03, 2003-04 & 2004-05. THE CIT (APPEALS) FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD THAT TH E ORDER DATED 27.04.2010 PASSED BY THE AO WERE BARRED BY LIMITATI ON. THE TRIBUNAL IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS ) HELD THAT SINCE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE HAVE BEEN INITIATED AFTER THE I.T.A. NO.510/LKW/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 6 SEARCH ON 16.11.2009, AS CONCLUDED BY THE COMMISSIO NER (APPEALS) AND THE AMENDED PROVISION HAD NOT COME IN TO FORCE ON THE SAID DATE, THE LAW ON THE DATE THE PROCEEDIN GS WERE INITIATED WAS TO BE CONSIDERED. THEREFORE, I QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER D ATED 10- 03-2011 PASSED UNDER SECTION 201(1)/201(1A) AS BARRED BY LIMITATION. AS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS BEING ALLOWED ON T HE ISSUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.03.2011 BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION, I AM NOT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE C ASE AS DIRECTED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 13-06- 2014. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, CAREFULLY C ONSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAWS RELIED ON BEFORE US. THE ONLY QUESTION THAT ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS APPEAL IS THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 10/03/2011, WHETHER THE SAID ORDER WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 201(1 )/201(1A) FOR NON DEDUCTION OF THE TAX AT SOURCE AND SHORT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND THE IMPOSITION OF THE INTEREST U/S 201(1A) OF THE A CT. BEFORE US, LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BARRED BY LIMITATION THEREFORE, TO DECID E WHETHER ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BARRED BY LIMITATION, WE H AVE TO INTERPRET THE PROVISION OF SECTION 201(3) OF THE ACT. BEFORE US, LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION [2008] 3 05 ITR 137 (DEL) AND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HUTCHISON ESSAR TELECOME LTD . [2010] 323 ITR 230 (DEL). THE HON'BLE COURT HELD THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 201(1)/201(1A) CAN BE INITIATED ONLY WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE E ND OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR OR WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEV ANT FINANCIAL YEAR. ON I.T.A. NO.510/LKW/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 7 THE FACE OF THESE JUDGMENTS, THE JUDGMENTS, IN OUR OPINION, WILL NOT ASSIST THE ASSESSEE AS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE PRO CEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 201(1)/201(1A) ON 09/0 2/2007 I.E. WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR OR WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. THESE JUDG MENTS, IN OUR OPINION, ON THE FACE WILL ASSIST THE REVENUE. THIS IS A FAC T THAT WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THERE WAS NO PROVISION PRESCRIBED BEING THE TIME LIMIT OF INITIATION OF PR OCEEDINGS AND PASSING OF THE ORDER U/S 201(1). 5. IN THE MEANWHILE, BY WAY OF FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT , 2009 WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 2010 SUB-SECTIONS (3) & (4) ALONG W ITH PROVISOS WERE INSERTED, THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF WHICH READ AS UND ER: '(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 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 RE FERRED TO IN SECTION 200 HAS BEEN FILED; (II) FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 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. (4) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-CLAUSE (II) OF SUB-SECTIO N (3) OF SECTION 153 AND OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 153 SHA LL, SO FAR AS MAY, APPLY 'TO THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN SUB- SECTION (3).' 6. THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS OF THE FINA NCE (NO. 2) BILL, 2009 IN RELATION TO THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 201 OF THE ACT READ AS UNDER: I.T.A. NO.510/LKW/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 8 'SUB-CLAUSE (B) OF CLAUSE 65 SEEKS TO PROVIDE TIME LIMIT FOR PASSING OF ORDER UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 2 01 IN CASE OF RESIDENT TAX PAYERS. IT PROVIDES THAT NO ORDER S HALL BE MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 201, DEEMING A PER SON TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR FAILURE TO DEDUCT THE WH OLE OR ANY PART OF THE TAX IN THE CASE OF A PERSON RESIDENT IN INDIA, AT ANY TIME AFTER THE EXPIRY OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE STATEMENT IS FILED IN A CASE WHER E THE STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN SECTION 200 HAS BEEN FILED . IT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT IN ANY OTHER CASE SUCH ORDER SHALL NO T BE MADE AT ANY TIME AFTER FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FI NANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE OR WP (C) NOS.8535, 8536, 8537/2011 AND CREDIT IS GIVEN. IT FURTHER PROVIDES THAT SUCH ORDER FOR A FINANCIAL YEAR COMMENCING ON OR BEFORE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2007 MAY BE PASSED AT ANY TIME ON OR BEFORE THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2011. THE SUB-CLAUSE ALSO PROVIDES TH AT THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-CLAUSE (II) OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 153 AND OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 153 SHALL, SO FAR A S MAY APPLY TO THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED IN PROPOSED SUB-SECTIO N (3) OF SECTION 201.' 7. THERE WAS A MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS OF FINANCE (2) BILL, 2009, WHICH WAS IN THE FORM OF A CIRCULAR ISS UED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT), WHICH READS AS UNDER: 'F. PROVIDING TIME LIMITS FOR PASSING OF ORDERS U/S 201(1) HOLDING A PERSON TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT CURRE NTLY, THE INCOME TAX ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY LIMITAT ION OF TIME FOR PASSING AN ORDER U/S 201(1) HOLDING A PERSON TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A TIME LIMIT, DISPUTES ARISE WHEN THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE TAKEN UP OR COMPLETED AFTER SUBSTANTIAL TIME HAS ELAPSED. IN ORDER TO BRING CERTAINTY ON THIS ISSUE, IT IS PR OPOSED TO PROVIDE FOR EXPRESS TIME LIMITS IN THE ACT WITHIN W HICH SPECIFIED ORDER U/S 201(1) WILL BE PASSED. IT IS PROPOSED THAT AN ORDER U/S 201(1) FOR FAILURE TO DEDUCT THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE TAX AS REQUIRED UNDER THIS ACT, IF THE DEDUCTEE IS A RESIDENT TAXPAYER SHALL BE PASSED WITHIN TWO I.T.A. NO.510/LKW/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 9 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH T HE STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE IS FILED BY TH E DEDUCTOR. WHERE NO SUCH STATEMENT IS FILED, SUCH ORDER CAN BE PASSED UP TILL FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YE AR IN WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MADE OR CREDIT IS GIVEN. TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT TIME FOR PENDING CASES, IT IS PROPOSED TO PROVIDE T HAT SUCH PROCEEDINGS FOR A FINANCIAL YEAR BEGINNING FROM 1ST APRIL, 2007 AND EARLIER YEARS CAN BE COMPLETED BY THE 31ST MARC H, 2011. HOWEVER, NO TIME-LIMITS HAVE BEEN PRESCRIBED FOR OR DER UNDER SUB-SECTION(1) OFSECTION 201 WHERE-- (A) THE DEDUCTOR HAS DEDUCTED BUT NOT DEPOSITED THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, AS THIS WOULD BE A CASE OF DEFA LCATION OF GOVERNMENT DUES, (B) THE EMPLOYER HAS FAILED TO PAY THE TAX WHOLLY O R PARTLY, UNDER SUB-SECTION (1A) OF SECTION 192, AS THE EMPLO YEE WOULD NOT HAVE PAID TAX ON SUCH PERQUISITES, (C) THE DEDUCTEE IS A NON-RESIDENT AS IT MAY NOT BE ADMINISTRATIVELY POSSIBLE TO RECOVER THE TAX FROM T HE NON- RESIDENT. IT IS PROPOSED TO MAKE THESE AMENDMENTS EFFECTIVE F ROM 1ST APRIL, 2010. ACCORDINGLY IT WILL APPLY TO SUCH ORDE RS PASSED ON OR AFTER THE 1ST APRIL, 2010.' 8. IT IS CLAIMED THAT, THEREFORE, AS FAR AS THE DEP ARTMENT WAS CONCERNED IT UNDERSTOOD THE INSERTION OF THE PROVIS O TO SECTION 201(3) AS PROVIDING 'SUFFICIENT TIME FOR PENDING CASES' IN RE SPECT OF WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS WERE TO BE COMPLETED BY 31ST MARCH, 201 1. 9. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT CONTRARY TO THE ABOVE U NDERSTANDING BY THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF DEPICTED IN THE ABOVE CIRCULA R ISSUED BY THE CBDT, THE DEPARTMENT UNDERSTOOD THE ABOVE AMENDMENT AS PE RMITTING IT TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 201 OF THE ACT F OR TREATING AN ASSESSEE I.T.A. NO.510/LKW/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 10 AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT EVEN IN RESPECT OF ALLEGE D FAILURE TO DEDUCT TDS FOR A PERIOD MORE THAN FOUR YEARS EARLIER TO 31ST M ARCH, 2011. 10. THIS QUESTION, AFTER THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2 01 OF THE ACT BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2009 WITH EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 2010 CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BY HON'BLE DELHI HIG H COURT IN ITA NO.57/2015 WP (C) NOS.8535, 8536, 8537/2011 AND [CI T (TDS)-I V. CJ INTERNATIONAL HOTELS PVT. LTD.]. ONE OF THE QUESTIO NS ADDRESSED BY THE COURT IN THE SAID CASE IN ITS JUDGMENT DATED 9TH FE BRUARY, 2015 CONCERNED THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR DECLARING AN ASSESSEE TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT. THE DISCUSSI ON IN THE SAID JUDGMENT ON THIS ISSUE IS CONTAINED IN PARAS 6 TO 10, WHICH READ AS UNDER: '6. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS SOUGHT TO BE PROCEEDED AGAINST SECTION 201 AS O NE IN DEFAULT, AFTER THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS. THIS COURT IS CONSCIOUS THAT THE TEXT OF THE PROVISION NOWHERE LIMITS THE E XERCISE OF POWERS. EQUALLY, THERE ARE SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF EN ACTMENT, I.E., SECTIONS 143 (2), 147, 148 AND 263, AND EVEN THROUGH INTRODUCTION OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS IN SECTION 153 OF THE ACT, WHERE THE TIME LIMIT IS SPECIFICALLY PRESCRIBED. AT THE SAME TIME, THIS COURT IN NHK JAPAN (SUPRA) WAS OF THE OP INION THAT THE POWER TO TREAT SOMEONE AS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT I S TOO DRASTIC, VAGUE AND OPPRESSIVE SINCE IT IS CONDITION ED BY SOME MEASURE OF LIMITATION. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COURT HAD INSISTED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INITIATION OF PROC EEDINGS UNDER SECTION 201, THE AO HAS TO ACT WITHIN FOUR YE ARS. IN NHK JAPAN, THE COURT DID TAKE NOTE OF THE JUDGMENT IN STATE OF PUNJAB V. BHATINDA DISTRICT CO-OP MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. (2007) 9 RC 637. 7. THE JUDGMENT IN NHK JAPAN TO A CERTAIN EXTENT WA S LIMITED BY THE AMENDMENT TOSECTION 201 BY SUBSTITUTION OF S ECTION 201 (3) W.E.F. 1.4.2010 BY FINANCE ACTNO.2/2009. TH IS SUBSTITUTION WAS IN TURN AMENDED W.E.F. 1.10.2014 - I.T.A. NO.510/LKW/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 11 BY FINANCE ACTNO.2/2014. AS A RESULT, THE PROVISION WHICH EXISTS AS ON DATE IS AS FOLLOWS: - '201. (3) NO ORDER SHALL BE MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) DEEMING 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 SEVEN YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN W HICH PAYMENT IS MADE OR CREDIT IS GIVEN.' 8. SECONDLY, SECTION 201 ITSELF WAS AMENDED BY INTR ODUCTION OF SUB-SECTION 1 (A) - WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT, F ROM 1.4.1966. THE PROVISION UNDERWENT LEGISLATIVE CHANGES ON DIFF ERENT OCCASIONS. THE DECISION IN NHK JAPAN WAS RENDERED O N 23.04.2008. THE REVENUE'S APPEAL WAS REJECTED ON 3. 7.2014. ALTHOUGH, THE SUPREME COURT HAD GRANTED SPECIAL LEA VE AND HAS APPARENTLY STATED IN ITS FINAL ORDER REJECTING THE REVENUE'S APPEAL THAT THE QUESTION IS LEFT OPEN, THE MERE CIR CUMSTANCE THAT THE PARLIAMENT DID NOT SPELL OUT ANY TIME LIMI T BEFORE IT DID EVENTUALLY IN 2009 - AND SUBSEQUENTLY IN 2014 - WOULD NOT LEAD TO THE SEQUITUR THAT THIS COURT'S RULING IN NH K JAPAN REQUIRES CONSIDERATION. IN THAT JUDGMENT, THE DIVIS ION BENCH HAD GIVEN VARIOUS REASONS, INCLUDING THE APPLICATIO N OF THE RATIONALE IN BHATINDA DISTRICT (SUPRA). IN NHK JAPA N, THE COURT HAD NOTICED THAT THE FACTS IN BHATINDA DISTRICT (SU PRA) JUDGMENT CONCERN EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY A STAT UTORY AUTHORITY IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC PERIOD OF LIMI TATION. THE COURT IN BHATINDA DISTRICT (SUPRA) HELD AS FOLLOWS: '17. IT IS TRITE THAT IF NO PERIOD OF LIMITATION HA S BEEN PRESCRIBED, STATUTORY AUTHORITY MUST EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD. WHAT, HOWE VER, SHALL BE THE REASONABLE PERIOD WOULD DEPEND UPON TH E NATURE OF THE STATUTE, RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES THERE UNDER AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS. 18. REVISIONAL JURISDICTION, IN OUR OPINION, SHOULD ORDINARILY BE EXERCISED WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS HAVING REG ARD TO THE PURPORT IN TERMS OF THE SAID ACT. IN ANY EVENT, THE SAME SHOULD NOT EXCEED THE PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS. THE VIE W OF THE HIGH COURT, THUS, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNREASONABLE . I.T.A. NO.510/LKW/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 12 REASONABLE PERIOD, KEEPING IN VIEW THE DISCUSSIONS MADE HEREINBEFORE, MUST BE FOUND OUT FROM THE STATUTORY SCHEME. AS INDICATED HEREINBEFORE, MAXIMUM PERIOD OF LIMITA TION PROVIDED FOR IN SUB-SECTION (6) OF SECTION 11 OF TH E ACT IS FIVE YEARS.' 9. MORE RECENTLY IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III V. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, LUDHIANA(2014) 362 ITR 673 (SC) , THE SUPREME WP (C) NOS.8535, 8536, 8537/2011 AND COURT HAD THE OCCASION TO DEAL WITH THE CORRECT POSITION IN L AW AS TO THE INITIATION OF INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. ALTHOUGH, THE CONTEXT OF THE DISPUTE WAS IN RESPECT OF RECORDING OF A SATISF ACTION NOTE AS TO THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THIRD P ARTIES UNDER ERSTWHILE SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT WHICH DID NOT PR ESCRIBE THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND LEFT IT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE AO TO DECIDE ON BEING SATISFIED THAT SUCH PROCEEDINGS WER E REQUIRED TO BE INITIATED, THE COURT LIMITED SUCH DISCRETION IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: '44. IN THE RESULT, WE HOLD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT A SATISFACTION NOTE IS SINE QUA NON AND MUST BE PREPARED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER BEFORE HE TRANSMITS THE RECORDS TO THE OTHER ASSESS ING OFFICER WHO HAS JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON . THE SATISFACTION NOTE COULD BE PREPARED AT EITHER OF TH E FOLLOWING STAGES: (A) AT THE TIME OF OR ALONG WITH THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE SEARCHED PERS ON UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT; (B) ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT; AND (C) IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 158BC OF TH E ACT OF THE SEARCHED PERSON.' 10. AN ADDED REASON WHY THE SUBMISSION OF THE REVEN UE IS UNACCEPTABLE IS THAT HAD THE PARLIAMENT INDEED INTE NDED TO OVERRULE OR SET ASIDE THE REASONING IN NHK JAPAN (S UPRA), IT WOULD HAVE, LIKE OTHER INSTANCES AND MORE SPECIFICA LLY IN THE CASE OF SECTION 201 (1A), BROUGHT IN A RETROSPECTIV E AMENDMENT, NULLIFYING THE PRECEDENT ITSELF. THAT IT CHOSE TO BRING SECTION 201 (3) IN THE FIRST INSTANCE IN 2010 AND LATER IN 2014 FORTIFIES THE REASONING OF THE COURT. ACCORDIN GLY, THE ISSUE IS ANSWERED AGAINST THE REVENUE.' I.T.A. NO.510/LKW/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 13 11. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISION ON HON' BLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF VODAFONE ESSAR MOBILE SERVI CES LTD. (SUPRA). WE NOTED THAT IN THIS CASE WHILE INTERPRETING CIRCULAR NO. 5 OF 2010 DATED 03/06/2010 OF CBDT UNDER PARA 28 OF ITS ORDER, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: 28. CIRCULAR 5 OF 2010 OF CBDT CLARIFYING THAT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 201(3) OF THE ACT WAS MEANT TO EXPAND TH E TIME LIMIT FOR COMPLETING THE PROCEEDINGS AND PASSING OR DERS IN RELATION TO 'PENDING CASES'. THE SAID PROVISO CANNO T BE INTERPRETED, AS IS SOUGHT TO BE DONE BY THE DEPARTM ENT, TO ENABLE IT TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR DECLARING AN WP (C) NOS.8535, 8536, 8537/2011 AND ASSESSEE TO BE AN ASS ESSEE IN DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 201 OF THE ACT FOR A PERIO D EARLIER THAN FOUR YEARS PRIOR TO 31ST MARCH, 2011. 11.1 FROM THE SAID FINDING OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT, I T IS APPARENT THAT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 201(3) WAS MEANT TO EXPAND THE T IME LIMIT FOR PASSING THE ORDER IN RELATION TO THE PENDING CASES. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, WE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED THE PROC EEDINGS U/S 201(1)/201(1A) FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 09/02/2007. THE PROCEEDING WAS NOT CONCLUDED. THE PROCEEDINGS REMA INED PENDING AS ON THE DATE WHEN THE PROVISO TO SECTION 201(3) WAS INS ERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT NO. 2 OF 2009 WITH EFFECT FROM 01/04/2010. IT IS NOT DENIED BY THE LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING AS ON 01/04/2010. THE PROVISO TO SECTION 201(3) THEREFOR E, WAS CLEARLY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH MANDAT ES THAT SUCH ORDER FOR A FINANCIAL YEAR COMMENCING ON OR THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, 2007 MAY BE PASSED AT ANY TIME ON OR BEFORE 31 ST DAY OF MARCH 2011. WE NOTED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON 10/03/2011 THEREFORE, ON THIS BASIS ITSELF IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BARRE D BY LIMITATION. WE I.T.A. NO.510/LKW/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 14 MAY MENTION THAT IN THE CASE OF NHK JAPAN BROADCAST ING CORPORATION (SUPRA) AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF CIT V. HUTCHISON ESSAR TELECOM LTD., THE HIGH COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 201( 1) AND 201(1A) OF THE ACT CAN BE INITIATED ONLY WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM T HE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR OR WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEV ANT FINANCIAL YEAR. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT Y EAR IS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WHILE THE FINANCIAL YEAR IS 2004-05. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS ON 09/02/2007. ON TH E BASIS OF THESE DECISIONS ALSO, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE TIME. IN THE CASE OF VODAFO NE ESSAR MOBILE SERVICES LTD. (SUPRA), THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT. IN THAT CA SE THE DEPARTMENT HAD INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 201 AGAINST THE ASSES SEE FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE FOR THE PERIODS EARLIER THAN FOUR YEARS PRIOR TO 31 ST MARCH 2011 TREATING THE ASSESSEE AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAUL T. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THAT CASE AFTER GOING THROUGH THE CIRCULAR NO. 5 OF 2010 AND THE OTHER JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT, DECIDED THE ISSUE REGARDING THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONE R WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE T IME. THE QUESTION WHETHER THE ORDER U/S 201(1)/201(1A) HAS BEEN PASSE D WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE U/S 201(3) HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED. WE MA Y MENTION THAT BOTH THE ACTIONS I.E. THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AND PASSING OF THE ORDER ARE DIFFERENT. THE CIT(A), IN OUR OPINION, COULD NOT A PPRECIATE THE DECISIONS ALONG WITH THE PROVISO TO SECTION 201(3) AND THE FA CTS OF THE CASE. IN THE DECISIONS WITH WHICH THE CIT(A) GOT CONFUSED RELATE D TO THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AND THE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT PENDING BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN THE PROVISO TO SECTION 201(3) WAS INSE RTED WITH EFFECT FROM 01/04/2010. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITHIN THE I.T.A. NO.510/LKW/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 15 PERMISSIBLE TIME I.E. ON 09/02/2007 AND THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING AS ON THE DATE WHEN THE PROVISO TO SECTION 201(3) WAS INSERTED INTO THE STATUTE AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 201(3), THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE PASSED THE ORDER AT ANY TIME ON OR BEFORE THE 31 ST MARCH 2011 FOR FINANCIAL YEAR COMMENDING ON OR BEF ORE 01/04/2007. 11.2 WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF HO N'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TATA TELESERVICES VS. UNION OF INDIA [2016] 66 TAXMANN.COM 157 (GUJARAT). IN THIS CASE THE QUESTI ON BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS WHETHER THE SECTION 201(3), AS AMEND ED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2014 ON 01/10/2014, WOULD BE APPLICABLE RETROS PECTIVELY OR PROSPECTIVELY OR WHETHER THE SAID PROVISION WOULD B E APPLICABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE I.T. ACT FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-10, THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAS ALRE ADY BECOME TIME BARRED PRIOR TO AMENDMENT IN SECTION 201(3) OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2014. THIS DECISION, IN OUR OPINION, WILL NOT ASSI ST THE ASSESSEE. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS DISCUSSED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 201(3) AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AS UNDER: 12.07. AT THIS STAGE, IT IS REQUIRED TO BE NOTED T HAT SUB- SECTION (3)(I) OF SECTION 201 CAME TO BE INTRODUCED BY FINANCE ACT NO.2 OF 2009 WHICH 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 31ST DA Y OF MARCH, 2011. AS PER MEMORANDUM OF FINANCE BILL NO.2 OF 2009, IN RESPECT OF HC-NIC PAGE 31 OF 64 CREATED ON TUE MAR 22 01:53:00 IST 2016 31 OF 64 F.Y.2007-08 AND EARLI ER YEARS ONLY PROCEEDINGS THAT WERE PENDING COULD BE COMPLET ED BY 31/3/2011 AND AS SUCH NO FRESH PROCEEDINGS COULD BE COMMENCED FOR THE SAID PERIOD. I.T.A. NO.510/LKW/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 16 THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT NOWHERE STATED THAT THE PROV ISO TO SECTION 201(3) AS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT NO. 02 OF 2009 WILL NOT APPLY WHERE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING AS ON 01/04/2010. 11.4 WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF I.T. A.T. DELHI B BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES [2 012] 28 TAXMANN.COM 168 (DELHI). WE NOTED THAT IN THAT CASE THE PROCEED INGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 TO 2005-06 WERE INITIATED O N 16/11/2009 I.E. AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THREE YEARS FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR. THERE FORE, THE TRIBUNAL RELYING ON THE ORDER OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF NHK JAPAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION (SUPRA) AND CIT V. HUTCHIS ON ESSAR TELECOM LTD. (SUPRA) TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATE D WERE BARRED BY LIMITATION. 12. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, WE SET ASI DE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/07/2016) SD/. SD/. ( ABY T. VARKEY ) ( P. K . BANSAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:27/07/2016 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. R EGISTRAR