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

MA 42/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7614 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C H SUNDAR RAO IITAT BENGALURU
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Retrospective amendment; Tax effect; Time period of passing order; TDS
• Section: 260A; 194C; 201(1); 201; 254(2); 194J

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A.K.GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P.NO.42/BANG/2019 [ IN ITA NO.1375/BANG/2018 ] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE. VS. M/S. KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, M. CHINNASWAMY STADIUM, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001. TAN/PAN: BLRK1 3462B / AAATT 2540E APPELLANT RESPONDENT RE VENUE BY : SHRI C.H. SUNDAR RAO, CIT(DR-I)(ITAT), BENGALURU. A SSESSEE BY : SHRI NARENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 17 . 0 1.20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 . 0 1.20 20 O R D E R PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REV ENUE U/S. 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) PRAYING FOR RECT IFICATION OF CERTAIN ALLEGEDLY APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL DATED 24.9.2018 PASSED IN THE AFORESAID APPEAL BY THIS TRIBUNAL. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED TDS FOR THE RELEVANT FYS AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN BELOW:- MP NO.42/BANG/2019 PAGE 2 OF 9 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 3. THE ORDER U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT WAS PA SSED BY THE ACIT, (TDS), CIRCLE-2(1) ON 11.9.2015. IT WAS THE PLEA O F THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE A CT BY THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 26.2.2015 WERE BARRED BY TIME AS LAID DOWN IN SEC.201(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO TOOK A PLEA THAT IT WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON PROVISION MADE FOR EXPENSES AND POLICE BANDOBAST CHARGES. THE STAND WAS REJECTED BY THE AO AND HE TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT AND DETERMINED TAX LIABILITY AN D 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 MP NO.42/BANG/2019 PAGE 3 OF 9 4. THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. THE QUESTION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS AS TO WHETH ER THE SAID ORDER IS BARRED BY TIME AS LAID DOWN IN THE PROVISIONS OF SE C.201(3) OF THE ACT. THE FOLLOWING SUB-SECTION (3) WAS INSERTED AFTER SUB-SE CTION (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 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 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. 6. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, WE SHALL ALSO REF ER TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS BY THE FINANCE ACT, 201 2, W.R.E.F. 1-4-2010 BY WHICH IN CLAUSE (II) OF SEC.201(3) FOR THE WORDS F OUR THE WORDS SIX WERE SUBSTITUTED. 7. 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 INDIA, AT ANY TIME AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SEVEN YEARS FROM THE E ND OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH PAYMENT IS MADE OR CREDIT I S GIVEN. MP NO.42/BANG/2019 PAGE 4 OF 9 8. THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE ISSUE AS FOLLOWS: 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LEARNED DR ON THE ISSUE OF LIMITATION. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED SUB MISSIONS MADE 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 385 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 PROV ISIONS OF SEC.201(3) AS SUBSTITUTED BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) AC T, 2014, W.E.F. 1-10-2014 ARE APPLICABLE ONLY PROSPECTIVELY AND IN RESPECT OF FINANCIAL YEARS PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT IN THE LA W, THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.201(3) PRIOR TO THE AFORESAID SUBSTITUTION. THE LEARNED DR REITERATED THE STAND OF THE REVENUE THAT THE SUBSTITUTED PROVISION S OF THE LAW WOULD APPLY. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.201(3)(I) OF THE PROVISIONS PRIOR TO SUBSTITUTION WILL NOT AP PLY AS THE RETURN OF TDS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT WITHIN TIME AN D 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 APPLICA BLE RETROSPECTIVELY OR NOT, THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF TATA TELESERVICES VS. UNION OF INDIA AND SPECIAL CI VIL APPLICATION NOS. 1623, 2115 AND 4771 OF 2015 JUDGEM ENT DATED 16/02/2016, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 TOOK THE VIEW THAT SECTION 201(3), AS AMENDED BY FINANCE 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 LIMITATION HAD ALREADY EXPIRED PRIOR TO AMENDED SEC TION 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 IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING TELE-COMMUNICA TION SERVICES AND SELLING SERVICE PRODUCTS ACROSS THE CO UNTRY. ACCORDING TO THE PETITIONER, IT IS GOVERNED BY TELE - COMMUNICATION INTERCONNECTION USAGE CHARGES REGULAT ION, 2003 ISSUED BY TRAI UNDER THE TRAI ACT, 1997. THE P ETITIONER 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 ATTENDA NCE IN CONNECTION WITH PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INCOME TAX AC T FOR A.Y. 2008-2009 AND 2009-2010 SEEKING DETAILS REGARDING T DS FOR F.Y. 2007-2008 AND 2008-2009. THE PETITIONER MADE SUBMISSIONS DATED 15/12/2014 AND CONTENDED THAT THE MP NO.42/BANG/2019 PAGE 5 OF 9 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SOUGHT TO BE INITIATED ARE T IME BARRED IN VIEW OF SECTION 201(3) AS IT STOOD AT THE END OF TH E RESPECTIVE FY 2007-2008 AND 2008-2009. ON A WRIT PETITION FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AS BARRED BY LIMI TATION, THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HELD THAT IT IS CLEAR TH AT EARLIER SECTION 201(3) AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 AMEN DED ON 28/5/2012 WAS SPECIFICALLY MADE APPLICABLE RETROSPE CTIVELY W.E.F. 1/4/2012, WHEREBY LIMITATION PERIOD WAS SUBSTITUTED FROM FOUR YEARS TO SIX YEARS FOR PASSING ORDERS WHERE TDS STA TEMENT HAD NOT BEEN FILED. HOWEVER, SECTION 201(3) AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT NO. 2 OF 2014, AS MENTIONED IN THE MEMORANDUM O F THE FINANCE BILL NO.2 OF 2014 IS STATED TO HAVE EFFECT FROM 1ST OCTOBER, 2014. THUS, WHEREVER THE PARLIAMENT / LEGI SLATURE WANTED TO MAKE PROVISIONS APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVEL Y, IT HAS BEEN SO PROVIDED. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT R EFERRED TO THE CASE OF S.S. GADGIL AIR 1965 SC 720 , WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAD OBSERVED AND HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION OR CLEAR IMPLICATION, LEGISLATURE DOES NOT INTEND TO ATTRIBUTE TO THE AMENDING PROVISION A GREATER RE TROSPECTIVITY THAN IS EXPRESSLY MENTIONED, NOR TO AUTHORIZE THE I NCOME TAX OFFICER TO COMMENCE PROCEEDINGS WHICH BEFORE THE NE W ACT CAME INTO FORCE HAD UPON THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD P ROVIDED, BECOME BARRED. THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT ALSO 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, AHMEDABAD AND ANOTHER, VERSUS INDUPRASAD DEVESHANKER BHATT, REPORTED IN AIR 1969 S.C. 778 AND WHILE INTERPRETING SECTION 297(2)(D)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE EARLIER D ECISION OF THE HONBLE 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 SUPREME 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 BEEN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE SAME SHALL BE APPL ICABLE 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 AN D/OR FOR THE AFORESAID FINANCIAL YEARS, LIMITATION UNDER SEC TION 201(3)(I) OF THE ACT HAD ALREADY EXPIRED ON 31/3/2011 AND 31/3/2 012, RESPECTIVELY, MUCH PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT IN SECTIO N 201 AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2014 AND THEREFORE, AS SUCH A RIGHT HAS BEEN ACCRUED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONS IDERING THE FACT THAT WHEREVER LEGISLATURE WANTED TO GIVE RETRO SPECTIVE EFFECT SO SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED WHILE AMENDING SECTION 201 (3) (II) OF THE MP NO.42/BANG/2019 PAGE 6 OF 9 ACT AS WAS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 WITH RETROS PECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1/4/2010, IT IS TO BE HELD THAT SECTION 201(3), AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT NO.2 OF 2014 SHALL NOT BE AP PLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY AND THEREFORE, NO ORDER UNDER SECTI ON 201(1) OF THE ACT CAN BE PASSED FOR WHICH LIMITATION HAD ALRE ADY 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 PROCEE DINGS U/S.201(1) OF THE ACT WERE BARRED BY TIME PRIOR TO AMENDMENT TO SEC.201(3) BY THE FINANCE ACT NO.2 OF 2014. IN THE SE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ORDER PASSED FOR FY 2010-11 U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT 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 THE 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 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 SECT ION 200 HAS BEEN FILED; (II ) IN ANY OTHER CASE. THERE WAS NO THIRD CATEGORY OF CASE WHERE A STATEMENT REFERRED TO IN SEC.200 IS FILED BELATEDLY. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED DR IS THER EFORE DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 9. IN THIS M.P. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE REVENUE AS F OLLOWS:- 4. THOUGH THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IS NOT ACC EPTABLE ON MERITS, CONSIDERING THE LOWER TAX EFFECT OF THE ORD ER I.E. 23,93,852/-, WHICH IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED THRESHOL D LIMIT FOR FILING APPEALS IN VIEW OF CIRCULAR NO. 3/2018 OF CB DT AND EXCEPTIONS LAID DOWN IN PARA 10, NO FURTHER APPEAL U/S 260A TO THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS RECOMMENDED. 5. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT IN PARA 7 OF THE ORDER, THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS STATED THAT 'BEFORE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT MP NO.42/BANG/2019 PAGE 7 OF 9 IT HAD FILED TDS FOR THE RELEVANT FYS AS PER THE DE TAILS GIVEN BELOW :- SI. 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 HOWEVER, UPON VERIFICATION OF APPEAL RECORDS, IT WA S SEEN THAT NO SUCH DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A), ONLY LETTERS OF ADJOURNMENT WERE FILED, WHI CH ARE ENCAPSULATED IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE DETAIL S IN QUESTION DO NOT FORM PART OF THE 'STATEMENT OF FACTS' FILED WITH FORM NO. 35 EITHER. THIS CONSTITUTES A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, BESIDES MISLEADING THE COURT WITH INCORRECT FACTS, ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION I.E. FY 2010-11, WHERE NO STATEMENTS WERE FILED, THE LIM ITATION WAS UPTO 31.03.2015 AS PER THE (UNAMENDED) PROVISIONS A PPLICABLE FROM 01.04.2010. BEFORE EXPIRY OF LIMITATION ON 31. 03.2015 AND BEFORE ACCRUAL OF ANY RIGHTS TO THE ASSESSEE, THE I .T. ACT WAS AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01.04.2010 AND THE LIMITATION GOT EXTENDED UPTO 31. 03.2017 (6 YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT FY.). THUS, THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE AO ON 11.09.2015 WAS WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD. THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS INCORRECTLY MENTIONED IN PARA 14 THAT 'IT IS NOT IN. DISPUTE BEFORE US THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 201(1) O F THE ACT WERE BARRED BY TIME PRIOR TO AMENDMENT TO SECTION 201(3) BY FINANCE ACT 2 OF 2014. '. THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS NOT DISCUSSE D THE PROVISION OF SECTION 201(3) AS AMENDED BY FINANCE A CT 2012 W.R.E.F 01.04.2010 WHICH ARE APPLICABLE IN THE INST ANT CASE. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NO T CORRECT TO STATE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN A FINDING IN PARAGRAPH-7 OF ITS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILS OF TDS STATEMENT FILING DATE S BEFORE CIT(A). THE TRIBUNAL HAS ONLY STATED IN PARAGRAPH-7 THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) THAT IT HAD FILED TDS FOR TH E RELEVANT FYS AS PER MP NO.42/BANG/2019 PAGE 8 OF 9 DETAILS GIVEN BELOW. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT STATED T HAT IT WAS FILED BEFORE CIT(A). FROM THE PAPER BOOK FILED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE RELEVANT RETURNS OF TDS ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGES-17-20 AND THE DATES OF FILING TDS RETURNS FOR THE VARIOUS QUARTER S ARE CORRECT. EVEN IN THE MP THE REVENUE HAS NOT TAKEN A STAND THAT RETURN OF TDS WERE NOT FILED OR THE DATES OF FILING OF TDS RETURN AS GIVEN BY THE A SSESSEE ARE NOT CORRECT. THE REVENUE HAS GONE TO THE EXTENT OF MAKING ALLEGA TIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MISLEAD THE COURT WITH INCORRECT FACTS . THE SAID ALLEGATION IS NOT CORRECT AS WE HAVE ALREADY STATED THE DATES ON WHICH RETURNS WERE FILED IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE PAPER BOOK. 11. THE NEXT CONTENTION IS THAT THE TIME FOR PASSIN G THE ORDER WAS AVAILABLE UP TO 31.3.2015 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.201(3)(II) OF THE ACT, AND WHEN SUCH TIME LIMIT WAS AVAILABLE THE FINANCE ACT, 2012, WITH RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT FROM 1.4.2010 EXTENDED HE P ERIOD OF LIMITATION TO 6 YEARS. THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS PASSED ON 11.9.20 15 AND THEREFORE THE ORDER HAS TO BE REGARDED AS ONE PASSED WITHIN THE P ERIOD OF LIMITATION I.E., 6 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT FY I.E., ON OR B EFORE 31.3.2017. THIS CONTENTION IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. FIRSTLY IT IS N OT A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. SECONDLY, THE CONTENTION IS MA DE ON A TOTAL MISCONCEPTION. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.201(3)(II) OF THE ACT WILL COME INTO PLAY ONLY WHEN RETURN OF TDS IS NOT FILED AND WHERE RETURN OF TDS IS FILED, THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION IS GOVERNED BY THE PROVISI ONS OF SEC.201(3)(I) OF THE ACT WHICH IS 2 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN OF TDS IS FILED. THE AMENDMENT TO SEC.201(3(II) BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THOSE PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AT ALL. IN FACT ALL THESE ASPECTS WER E ELABORATELY DISCUSSED IN PARAGRAPH-12 TO 15 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. I N FACT IN PARAGRAPH-15 OF THE ORDER THE APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SEC.20 1(3)(I) OF THE ACT TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED B Y HOLDING THAT THOSE MP NO.42/BANG/2019 PAGE 9 OF 9 PROVISIONS ALONE APPLY TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE HE HAS FILED RETURN OF TDS. THE MP HAS BEEN FILED ON TOTAL MISC ONCEPTION OF FACTS AND DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISS ED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE MP IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020. SD/- SD/- ( A.K.GARODIA ) ( N V VA SUDEVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT BANGALORE, DATED, THE 29 TH JANUARY, 2020. / DESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.