9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer that SOS/c of the fees received by the Appellant from life members is taxable and in not following the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the Appellant's own case on the same issue for the preceding assessment years. 1 : 2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of its case and the law prevailing on the subject the addition made by the Assessing Officer from the fees received from life members is misconceived , erroneous, incorrect and bad- in-law and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held as such. 1: 3 The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to delete the addition so made and to re-compute its total income accordingly. 2 : 0 Re.: Treating entrance fees received from the ordinary members as taxable receipt: 2 : 1 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the view of the Assessing Officer that 800/c of the entrance fees received by the Appellant during the year from ordinary members is a revenue receipt forming part of the taxable income for the year. 2 : 2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iness income and the stand taken by the Assessing Officer in this regard is erroneous, misconceived and ought to be struck down and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have held as such. 4 : 3 The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to consider redemption / switch-out of units of mutual funds as capital gain / (loss) and to re-compute its total income accordingly. 5 :0 Re.: Credit for self - assessment tax of Rs. 11,84,695/- not granted: 5 : 1 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in not deciding on the issue relating to not granting by the Assessing Officer of credit for the tax paid on self- assessment amounting to Rs. 11,84,695/-. 5 : 2 The Appellant submits that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law prevailing on the subject the Appellant is entitled to credit for tax paid on self -assessment during the year and the Commissioner of Income-tax ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to grant credit for the same. 5 : 3 The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to grant the credit for tax paid on self- assessment and to re-compute its tax liability accordingly 6 : 0 R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 74 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Commissioner of Income-tax ought to have directed the Assessing Officer to quantity the same. 8 : 3 The Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer be directed to quantify the brought forward 'long term capital loss' and 'short term capital loss' to be carried forward to the subsequent years in accordance with law. 9 : 0 Re.: General 9 : 1 The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or substitute and/or modify in any manner whatsoever modify all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 29.09.2012 declaring total loss to the tune of Rs.(-) 3,66,68,601/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 06.08.2013 was issued and served upon the assessee. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 22.09.2014 & 08.12.2014 were also issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee company was engaged in the business of Club with catering, games and other recreational facilities available to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance with law. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. ITA. NO.3592/M/2015 7. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A)- 10, Mumbai dated 02/03/2015 pertaining to the AY 2010-11. 8. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused materials available on record. During course of hearing, ld. DR for the revenue submitted that tax effect involved in this appeal filed by the revenue is less than Rs. 50 lacs and in view of latest CBDT circular No. 3/2018 dated 11-7-2018, and also modified circular No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019, appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable and needs to be dismissed. The Ld. DR, further argued that, the issue involved in this appeal is appears to be covered by exception provided under clause (e) of subsequent circular and therefore, if required the revenue shall be allowed to file miscellaneous application to re-call the order. We, find that, the CBDT, recently had issued a circular no. 3/2018 dated 11-7-2018, superseding its earlier circular no. 21/2015 and enhanced monetary limit for filing appeal before various appellate authorities and acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here it is not practicable to do so on the ground of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, the bench could fix a future date of pronouncement of the order which shall not ordinarily be a day beyond a further period of 30 days. Thus, a period of 60 days has been provided under the extant rule for pronouncement of the order. This period could be extended by the bench on the ground of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. However, the extended period shall not ordinarily exceed a period of 30 days. 6.2 Although the order was well drafted as well as approved before the expiry of 90 days, however, unfortunately, on 24/03/2020, a nationwide lockdown was imposed by the Government of India in view of adverse circumstances created by pandemic covid-19 in the country. The lockdown was extended from time to time which crippled the functioning of most of the government departments including Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The situation led to unprecedented disruption of judicial work all over the country and the order could not be pronounced despite lapse of considerable period of time. The situation created by pandemic covid-19 could be termed as unprecedented and beyond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nter alia, directed that "We, therefore, direct the President of the Appellate Tribunal to frame and lay down the guidelines in the similar lines as are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai (supra) and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the benches of the Tribunal in that behalf. We hope and trust that suitable guidelines 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 light revert to the prevailing situation in the country. On 24th March, 2020, Hon'ble Prime Ministe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontrolled' 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 excludingat 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 Dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
