2020 (7) TMI 19 - AT - Income Tax

Order being pronounced after ninety (90) days of hearing - COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown - HELD THAT - We are of the considered view that rather than taking a pedantic view of the rule requiring pronouncement of orders within 90 days, disregarding the important fact that the entire country was in lockdown, we should compute the period of 90 days by excluding at least the period during which the lockdown was in force. We must factor ground realities in mind while interpreting the time limit for the pronouncement of the order. Law is not brooding omnipotence in the sky. It is a pragmatic tool of the social order. The tenets of law being enacted on the basis of pragmatism, and that is how the law is required to interpreted. The interpretation so assigned by us is not only in consonance with the letter and spirit of rule 34(5) but is also a pragmatic approach at a time when a disaster, notified under the Disaster Management Act 2005, is causing unprecedented disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. See DCIT vs. JSW Limited 2020 (5) TMI 359 - ITAT MUMBAI Even without the words ordinarily , in the light of the above analysis of the legal position, the period during which lockout was in force is to excluded for the purpose of time limits set out in rule 34(5) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income Tax.
2. Dismissal of appeal by First Appellate Authority.
3. Request for another opportunity of hearing.
4. Consideration of Covid-19 pandemic impact on order pronouncement.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The appellant did not appear before the First Appellate Authority, resulting in an ex-parte dismissal. However, during the appeal hearing, the appellant's advocate explained that the appellant had moved from Rajkot to Jamnagar, which led to non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal found the explanation genuine and set aside the issue for the First Appellate Authority to reconsider, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case and submit relevant evidence. The appellant was directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

2. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and cooperation between the appellant and the authorities. The decision was made after considering the genuine reasons for non-appearance before the First Appellate Authority and ensuring justice was not compromised due to procedural lapses.

3. The Tribunal addressed the procedural issue of pronouncing the order post the Covid-19 lockdown period. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal discussed the impact of the lockdown on the time limit for pronouncing orders. Considering the extraordinary circumstances caused by the pandemic and the legal provisions allowing for extensions due to force majeure events, the Tribunal excluded the lockdown period while calculating the time limit under Rule 34(5) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The decision was in line with the pragmatic interpretation of the law and the exceptional situation faced by the justice delivery system during the pandemic.

4. By excluding the lockdown period, the Tribunal ensured that the order pronouncement was within the permissible time frame, taking into account the unprecedented disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The decision reflected a balanced approach considering both legal requirements and practical challenges faced during the extraordinary circumstances, thereby upholding the principles of justice and fairness in the legal process.