9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been confirmed. 2. There is an application of condonation of delay of 49 days filed by the assessee. A plea taken by the assessee is this that the office of the assessee is located 35 kilometres away from Jamnagar city. The assessee could collect the order impugned only on 05.02.2018 from the office of the CIT(A) since he was being in his site work at Moti Khavdi, industrial belt. Apart from that during that period the assessee fell sick and could not coordinate with the consultant for preferring the appeal before us which seems to be genuine and practical and hence delay is condoned. 3. The brief fact leading to the case id this that the assessee a partnership firm, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 declaring total income of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly be levied. We are further perused the orders passed by the authorities below from which it appears that the appellant submitted a reply on 11.01.2018 before the First Appellate Authority wherein he has been reiterated the plea that by mistake the interest on income tax refund of Rs. 80,164 was not shown. However, there is no deliberate intention on the part of the assessee for such Act neither there was any default on the part of the assessee to ensure compliance with statutory requirement. According to us, merely because there is a provision for the imposition of penalty, the officer must not exercise his jurisdiction and impose penalty in every case. Penalty, in our considered opinion, should be imposed for the failure to perform a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty should be justified for an inadvertent mistake committed by the assessee. Hence, penalty order is found to be devoid of any merit and hereby quashed. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 8. Before parting we would like to make certain observation relating to the issue cropped up under present scenario of Covid-19 pandemic as to whether when the hearing of the matter was concluded on 26.02.2020 the order can be pronounced today i.e. on 29.06.2020. The issue has already been discussed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of DCIT vs. JSW Ltd. (ITA Nos. 6264 & 6103/Mum/2018) pronounced on 14.05.2020 in the light of which it is well within the time limit permitted under Rule 34(5) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the date of concluding the hearing. It is, however, important to note that the expression "ordinarily" has been used in the said rule itself. This rule was inserted as a result of directions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein Their Lordships had, inter 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 Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 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 15days after the lifting of lockdown". Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in an order dated 15th April 2020, has, besides ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
