9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Act. Accordingly we hold that the order framed under section 263 of the Act is not sustainable and hence we quashed the same. Thus the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 251/Rjt/2014 - - - Dated:- 2-6-2020 - Shri Waseem Ahmad, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member Revenue by : Shri M.N. Maurya, CIT-D.R. Assessee by : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ORDER PER BENCH :- This assessee s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, arises from order of the CIT(A)-III, Rajkot dated 28-03-2014, in proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act . 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT erred in holding the assessment order framed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act, as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and earning income from other sources and capital gain. The assessee for the year under consideration has filed his return of income declaring income of ₹ 3,14,450/- only. Subsequently the case of the assessee was selected under scrutiny and the assessment was made b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this behalf ; or (ii) that having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it is necessary so to do, 89 and where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clauses (ha) and (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (3A) and (4) of section 23, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall with the necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the 90[Assessing] Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act. 9. A plain reading of the above provision reveals that the AO can substitute the value shown by the assessee as on 1 April 1981 if he has shown less value whereas the assessee in the present case has shown the higher value. Thus the question of making reference or substituting the value shown by the assessee as on 1 April 1981 in the given facts and circumstances does not arise. 10. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgement of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Gauranging S. Sodhan Indl. Repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lal Shah v. ITO [2009] 310 ITR 31/181 taxman 191 (Guj.). In the said decision, it was held and observed as under:- 10. Under clause(a) of sec. 55A of the Act under the Assessing Officer is entitled to make the reference to the Valuation Officer in a case where the value of the asset as claimed by the assessee is in accordance with the estimate made by the Registered Valuer, if the Assessing Officer is of the opinion that the value so claimed is less than the fair market value. In any other case, as provided under clause(b) of Sec. 55A of the Act, the Assessing Officer has to record an opinion that (i) the fair market value of the asset exceeds the value of the asset as claimed by the assessee by more than such percentage or by more than such an amount as may be prescribed; or (ii) having regard to the nature of the asset and other relevant circumstances, it is necessary to make such a reference. 17. In the result, we see no reason to interfere. However, we have given our independent reasons and should not be seen to have confirmed the reasonings adopted by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. Tax Appeal is dismissed. 11. We also note that there was an ame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f judicial wok all over the country. As a matter of fact, it has been such an unprecedented situation, causing disruption in the functioning of judicial machinery, that Hon ble Supreme Court of India, in an unprecedented order in the history of India and vide order dated 6.5.2020 read with order dated 23.3.2020, extended the limitation to exclude not only this lockdown period but also a few more days prior to, and after, the lockdown by observing that In case the limitation has expired after 15.03.2020 then the period from 15.03.2020 till the date on which the lockdown is lifted in the jurisdictional area where the dispute lies or where the cause of action arises shall be extended for a period of 15 days after the lifting of lockdown . Hon 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 M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The extraordinary steps taken suo motu by Hon ble jurisdictional High Court and Hon ble Supreme Court also indicate that this period of lockdown cannot be treated as an ordinary period during which the normal time limits are to remain in force. In our considered view, 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. Viewed thus, the exception, to 90-day time-limit for pronouncement of orders, inherent in rule 34(5)(c), with respect to the pronouncement of orders within ninety days, clearly comes into play in the present case. Of course, there is no, and there cannot be any, bar on the discretion of the benches to refix the matters for clarifications because of considerable time lag between the point of time when the hearing is concluded and the point of time when the order thereon is being finalized, but then, in our considered view, no such exercise was required to be carried out on the facts of this case. 11. To sum up, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
