9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received interest income of Rs. 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 2,30,510/-. Apart from this, penalty was also levied u/s 271( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(ii) and (2)(b((iv) of Rule 127 of the Income Tax (18th Amendment) Rules, 2015. 3. Address of Appellant in the title of impugn order passed by CIT(A) is different from address of Appellant in cause title in Appeal Form No.35. Proof of alleged service and/or delivery or transmission of the said notice and communication is not offered to the Appellant for his comment and criticism. The observation of CIT(A) that Appellant had failed to attend and had also failed to furnish the details called for u/s 142(1) by A.O. is against the weight of evidence on record. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 10,000/- levied by A.O. u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 5. At the outset, Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 excluding the days for which the lockdown announced by the Government was in force. The relevant observations of this tribunal in the said binding precedent are as under:- 7. However, before we part with the matter, we must deal with one procedural issue as well. While hearing of these appeals was concluded on 7th January 2020, this order thereon is being pronounced today on 14th day of May, 2020, much after the expiry of 90 days from the date of conclusion of hearing. We are also alive to the fact that rule 34(5) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963, which deals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .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-bound by this Court, the period for which the order dated 26th March 2020 continues to operate shall be added and time shall stand extended accordingly", and also observed that "arrangement continued by an order dated 26th March 2020 till 30th April 2020 shall continue further till 15th June 2020". It has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etation 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 that directed "while calculating the time for disposal of matters made time- bound by this Court, the period for which the order dated 26th March 2020 continues t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
