Home › Tax Laws › ITO v.EID Mohammad Nizamuddin (2018) 172 ITD 448 / 196 TTJ 232( 2019) 173 DTR 156( Jaipur) ( Trib) www.itatonline.org .

ITO v.EID Mohammad Nizamuddin (2018) 172 ITD 448 / 196 TTJ 232( 2019) 173 DTR 156( Jaipur) ( Trib) www.itatonline.org .

S. 206C : Collection at source – Trading -Limitation-Order passed beyond limit of four years is bad in law -Though Section does not impose any limitation period for the AO to hold the assessee to be in default for collection of tax at source, a reasonable time limit of four years has to be read into the statute- Orders passed after this period are beyond the limitation and are void-The fact that the Dept became aware of the default later is irrelevant. The fact that the assessee admitted his liability is also irrelevant- Assessment is held to be bad in law .[ S.191, 201 ]

Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that ;though Section does not impose any limitation period for the AO to hold the assessee to be in default for collection of tax at source, a reasonable time limit of four years has to be read into the statute. Orders passed after this period are beyond the limitation and are void. The fact that the Dept became aware of the default later is irrelevant. The fact that the assessee admitted his liability is also irrelevant. Assessment is held to be bad in law. Followed CIT (TDS) v. Anagram Wellington Assets Management Co Ltd ( 2016) 389 ITR 654 ( Guj) (HC), Vodafone Essar Mobile Services Ltd v.UOI ( 2016) 385 ITR 436 ( Delhi) (HC)( ITA 316 & 248/JP/2018, dt. 29.08.2018)(AY. 2009-10)

http://itatonline.org/archives/wp-content/uploads/Eid-Mohammad-TCS-Default.pdf[Click here to download PDF file]