9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income Tax 2(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the assessee is entitled for interest u/s. 244(1A) of the Act on the refund of Rs. 23,91,54,333/- for the period 29/10/2013 to 21/11/2017 in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. To adjudicate the aforesaid issue, the following list of dates and events would be relevant:- Date Event 28/03/1998 Date of passing of assessment order 21/02/2003 Date of passing of ld. CIT(A)'s order 18/03/2005 Order passed by the ld.AO giving effect to the order of ld. CIT(A) 27/01/2009 Date of passing of ITAT order 26/03/2009 Order passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iving effect to the order of this Tribunal. In that giving effect order, the ld. AO had finally adjusted the refund of Rs. 23,91,54,333/- against demand of A.Y.2009-10 raised on the assessee. These facts including the list of dates and events and the proceedings thereon are not controverted by the revenue before us. Now, the short point that arises for our consideration is whether the assessee is entitled for interest u/s.244 of the Act from the date of payment of taxes i.e.29/10/2013 and till the date such taxes were actually adjusted against the demand of some other assessment year i.e.21/11/2017. In other words, the issue to be decided by us is whether the assessee is entitled for interest u/s.244 of the Act for the period 29/10/2013 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was in force. The relevant observations of this tribunal in the said binding precedent are as under:- 7. However, before we part with the matter, we must deal with one procedural issue as well. While hearing of these appeals was concluded on 7th January 2020, this order thereon is being pronounced today on 14th day of May, 2020, much after the expiry of 90 days from the date of conclusion of hearing. We are also alive to the fact that rule 34(5) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963, which deals with pronouncement of orders, provides as follows: (5) The pronouncement may be in any of the following manners :- (a) The Bench may pronounce the order immediately upon the conclusion of the hearing. (b) In case where the order is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es shall be framed and issued by the President of the Appellate Tribunal within shortest reasonable time and followed strictly by all the Benches of the Tribunal. In the meanwhile (emphasis, by underlining, supplied by us now), all the revisional and appellate authorities under the Income-tax Act are directed to decide matters heard by them within a period of three months from the date case is closed for judgment". In the ruled so framed, as a result of these directions, the expression "ordinarily" has been inserted in the requirement to pronounce the order within a period of 90 days. The question then arises whether the passing of this order, beyond ninety days, was necessitated by any "extraordinary" circumstances. 9. Let us in this lig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n‟ble Bombay High Court, in an order dated 15th April 2020, has, besides extending the validity of all interim orders, has also observed that, "It is also clarified that while calculating time for disposal of matters made time-bound by this Court, the period for which the order dated 26th March 2020 continues to operate shall be added and time shall stand extended accordingly", and also observed that "arrangement continued by an order dated 26th March 2020 till 30th April 2020 shall continue further till 15th June 2020". It has been an unprecedented situation not only in India but all over the world. Government of India has, vide notification dated 19th February 2020, taken the stand that, the coronavirus "should be considered a case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2005, is causing unprecedented disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon‟ble Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days, but then in the present situation Hon‟ble Bombay High Court itself has, vide judgment dated 15th April 2020, held that directed "while calculating the time for disposal of matters made time- bound by this Court, the period for which the order dated 26th March 2020 continues to operate shall be added and time shall stand extended accordingly". The extraordinary steps taken suo motu by Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court and Hon‟ble Supreme Court als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
