TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities below. Business income was charged to tax on presumption basis under the provisions of section 44 AD of the Act. Thus it is transpired that there was no deliberate act on the part of the assessee not to disclose the business receipts in his income tax return. In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment in the case of ITO Vs. Bombay wala readymade stores [ 2014 (11) TMI 1099 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] Any addition/disallowances made during the quantum proceedings does not automatically justify the levy of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Besides the element of income added the quantum proceedings, there must be some material/circumstantial evidences leading to the reasonable conclusion that there was conscious concealment or the act of furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, we are not convinced with the finding of the authorities below. Hence we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty levied by him under section 271(1)(c). Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA. No: 291/RJT/2018 - - - Dated:- 1-6-2020 - Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Madhum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, by issuing a show cause notice under section 274 of the Act. 5. The assessee in response to such notice submitted that the income was offered to tax to buy the peace of mind. Similarly, the assessee admitted the income and paid the tax dated 27 July 2016 before the receipt of the assessment order dated 30 September 2016. Accordingly the assessee claimed that he has not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the particular of income deliberately. However the AO disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income. Accordingly he levied the penalty of ₹ 63,455/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: The appellant during the course of assessment proceedings stated before the AO that source of cash deposits was out of business activities carried out during the year under assessment. However, such business activities was not disclosed by the appellant in the return of income. The appellant was also not maintaining the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he controversy before us arises so as to adjudicate whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of income with respect to such business receipts not disclosed in the income tax return. The term concealment of particular of income has not been defined under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) or elsewhere in the Act the Act. However, the meaning of the term concealed /inaccurate has been discussed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd reported in 189 taxman 322 wherein it was held that the term inaccurate signifies deliberate act or omission on the part of the assessee. As such, the details/informations contained in the return of income /financial statements /audit report which are not correct according to truth, and were furnished by the assessee with the dishonest intent shall be treated as inaccurate particulars. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd (supra). We are not concerned in the present case with the mensrea. However, we have to only see as to whether in this case, as a matter of fact, the assessee has given inaccurate particula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. Accordingly, we are not convinced with the finding of the authorities below. Hence we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty levied by him under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 14. 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 world is facing the unprecedented challenge of Covid 2019 outbreak, resulting the lockdown in the country, the orders though substantially prepared but could not be pronounced for the unavoidable reasons within the maximum period of 90 days. In such circumstances we find that the Hon ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of JSW Limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... virus should be considered a case of natural calamity and FMC (i.e. force majeure clause) maybe invoked, wherever considered appropriate, following the due procedure . The term force majeure has been defined in Black s Law Dictionary, as an event or effect that can be neither anticipated nor controlled 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 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 or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
