9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 271(1)(c) of the Act. As such, the onus, in the case of deemed income as specified under section 45(3) of the Act, lies on the Revenue to prove that such deemed income is the real income of the assessee in order to attract the penalty provisions specified under section 271(1)(c) - See case of CIT Vs. Baroda Tin works Box [ 1995 (9) TMI 18 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] We hold that the assessee has not deliberately undisclosed the income under the head capital gain and claimed excessive interest expenses. As such the assessee himself suo-moto revised the computation and paid the taxes before any finding from the AO. Accordingly, in such a situation the penalty provisions cannot be attracted. Hence, we set aside the finding of the learned CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty imposed by him. Thus the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee Order being pronounced after ninety (90) days of hearing - COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the extraordinary situation in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, the period of lockdown days need to be excluded. See case of DCIT vs. JSW Limited [ 2020 (5) TMI 359 - ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: After considering all facts and circumstances of the Act, I am not inclined to agree with the contentions of the appellant. The AO made two additions. First addition of ₹ 15,94,965/- was made u/s 45(3) of the Act on account of short term capital gains from introduction of land as capital contribution in firm . Second addition was on account of interest of ₹ 1,69,948/- not received from Jay Corporation. There is no substance in the contention of the appellant that no penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is leviable since it included above amounts in his income in revised computation and paid taxes on the same. Thus contention is wrong, as the additions are made of ₹ 15,94,965/- and ₹ 1,69,948/- while tax paid on 31.12.2015 is ₹ 2,69,732/-. Hence it is clear that there is concealment of income of ₹ 15,94,965/- and ₹ 1,69,948/- and the AO was justified in levying penalty of ₹ 5,45,725/- Accordingly, I uphold levy of penalty of ₹ 5,45,725/-. Thus ground of appeal is rejected. 11. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 12. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return of income /financial statements /audit report which are not correct according to truth, and were furnished by the assessee with the dishonest intent shall be treated as inaccurate particulars. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd (supra). We are not concerned in the present case with the mensrea. However, we have to only see as to whether in this case, as a matter of fact, the assessee has given inaccurate particulars. In Webster's Dictionary, the word "inaccurate" has been defined as :- "not accurate, not exact or correct; not according to truth; erroneous; as an inaccurate statement, copy or transcript." We have already seen the meaning of the word "particulars" in the earlier part of this judgment. Reading the words in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the Return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous. We must hasten to add here that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false 18. Now, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the finding of the learned CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty imposed by him. Thus the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 21. Before we part with the issue/appeal as discussed above, it is pertinent to note that the clause (c) of rule 34 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963 requires the bench to make endeavour to pronounce the order within 60 days from the conclusion of the hearing. However the period of 60 days can be extended under exceptional circumstances but the same should not ordinarily be further extended beyond another 30 days. In simple words the total time available to the Bench is of 90 days upon the conclusion of the hearing. However, during the prevailing circumstances where the entire world is facing the unprecedented challenge of Covid 2019 outbreak, resulting the lockdown in the country, the orders though substantially prepared but could not be pronounced for the unavoidable reasons within the maximum period of 90 days. In such circumstances we find that the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of JSW Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No. 6103/MUM/2018 vide order dated 14-5-2020 extended the time for pronouncing the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te, following the due procedure…". The term 'force majeure' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, as 'an event or effect that can be neither anticipated nor controlled' When such is the position, and it is officially so notified by the Government of India and the Covid-19 epidemic has been notified as a disaster under the National Disaster Management Act, 2005, and also in the light of the discussions above, the period during which lockdown was in force can be anything but an "ordinary" period. 10. In the light of the above discussions, 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 interpre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
