9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this regard we find support and guidance from the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd [2007 (11) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] . We hold that there is no error in the order of the AO causing prejudice to the interest of revenue as alleged by the learned principle CIT. Accordingly we hold that the order passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act, is not sustainable. Hence we quash the same. Thus the ground of appeal of the assessee allowed. - ITA No. 43/Rjt/2020 - - - 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Income-tax Act, 1961. After careful consideration of written submission of the assessee and the materials on records and taking into consideration the fact of the case, the claim of the assessee in treating central excise and VAT incentive which is being disbursed with a specific purpose, every year, on regular basis towards meeting its running expenses and operation needs, is treated as revenue in nature and an amount of ₹ 73,24,821/- is therefore added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, the total assessed income of the assessee stands enhanced by ₹ 73,24,821/-. The AO is, therefore, directed to give effect of this order within the time limit prescribed under section 153(5) of the Act and re-compute the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this regard we find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd reported in 295 ITR 282 wherein it was held as under: It was not in dispute that when the order of the Commissioner was passed, there were two views on the word 'profit' in section 80HHC. The problem with section 80HHC is that it has been amended eleven times. Different views existed on day when the Commissioner passed his order and moreover mechanics of section have become so complicated over years that two views were inherently possible. Therefore, subsequent amendment in 2005 even though retrospective would not attract provision of section 263, p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act, is not sustainable. Hence we quash the same. Thus the ground of appeal of the assessee allowed. 10. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor 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. 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 Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
