9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therein the total income of ₹ 2,30,510/-. On information that assessee has received interest income of ₹ 1,82,620/- and same has not been offered for taxation in the original return of income. Therefore, the case was reopened u/s 147 after issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response, assessee filed the return of income on 10.04.2017 declaring total income of ₹ 2,30,510/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. In response, AR of the assessee filed the relevant information as called for. After considering the submission of assessee, AO passed assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act thereby making additions, determining the total income at ₹ 2,30,510/-. Apart from this, penalty was also levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the above order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee, rejected the contention of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Now before us, the assessee has preferred appeal by raising the grounds of appeal as under:- 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty levied u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) is not proper. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the orders passed by the revenue authorities. 7. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we notice that in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, AO himself acknowledges that notice u/s 142(1) was issued and served on the assessee and in response, assessee has made his submission, through mail, which clearly indicates that assessee has complied the notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, therefore the penalty levied u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(b) is not proper and justifiable. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 8. In the net result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that this order is pronounced after a period of 90 days from the date of conclusion of the hearing. In this regard, we place reliance on the decision of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of JSW Ltd in ITA Nos. 6264 6103/Mum/2018 dated 14.5.2020, wherein this issue has been addressed in detail allowing time to pronounce the order beyond 90 days from the date of conclusion of hearing by exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in 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 Minister of India took the bold step of imposing a nationwide lockdown, for 21 days, to prevent the spread of Covid 19 epidemic, and this lockdown was extended from time to time. As a matter of fact, even before this formal nationwide lockdown, the functioning of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai was severely restricted on account of lockdown by the Maharashtra Government, and on account of strict enforcement of heal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her 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 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 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 tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
