TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich are present in this case, therefore, the Pr. CIT has rightly invoked the provisions of Section 263 of the I.T. Act to reopen the completed assessment. In the revised grounds of appeal the assessee has challenged only one issue for invoking the revisionary proceedings by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 without application of mind by the Pr. CIT. It is clear from the order of the Pr. CIT at page 2 that the Pr. CIT before invoking the revisionary power u/s. 263 of the Act has asked for the report of the AO and receipt of the report from the AO the same has been confronted to the counsel of the assessee. CIT has enquired before invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, the revised grounds of appeal raised by the assessee have no merit and the same are dismissed. We, therefore, of the opinion that the Pr. CIT has taken a right view in quashing the assessment framed by the AO and directing the AO to make fresh assessment. Accordingly, we uphold the findings recorded by the Pr. CIT and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. - ITA No. 285/ASR/2016 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2020 - L.P. Sahu, Member (A) And Ravish Sood, Member (J) For the Appellant : Ashwani Kalia, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is incorrect. 5. That the order is bad in law and on facts. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the ground of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from salary, working remuneration and interest on capital from partnership firm. The assessee filed his return on 15.12.2011 declaring his total income of ₹ 7,61,950/-, which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and selected for scrutiny under CASS. Thereafter the AO framed the assessment and assessed the total income of the assessee at ₹ 7,61,950/- creating an additional demand of Rs. NIL. 4. Subsequently, the Pr. CIT-II, Amritsar, invoking powers u/s. 263 of the Act has quashed the order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act holding the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 5. Against the above order of Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR before us submitted that the AO has rightly observed that there is no demand against the assessee as the assessed income and returned income are same. Therefore, the Pr. CIT ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.A. and Counsel of the assessee attended the proceeding from time to time. The report of the A.O. received through the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-5, Amritsar was confronted to the counsel of the assessee and also visa versa. From the above, it is clear that the Ld. Pr. CIT has enquired before invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, the revised grounds of appeal raised by the assessee have no merit and the same are dismissed. We, therefore, of the opinion that the Pr. CIT has taken a right view in quashing the assessment framed by the AO and directing the AO to make fresh assessment. Accordingly, we uphold the findings recorded by the Pr. CIT and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 10. Now, a procedural issue comes before us that though the hearing of the captioned appeal was concluded on 06.02.2020, however, this order is being pronounced much after the expiry of 90 days from the date of conclusion of hearing. We find that Rule 34(5) of the Income tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1962, which envisages the procedure for pronouncement orders, provides as follows: 34(5) The pronouncement may be in any of the following manners:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TAT, Mumbai 'F' Bench in DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs. JSW Limited Ors. (ITA No. 6264/Mum/18 dated 14.5.2020, wherein, it was observed as under: 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 health advisories with a view of checking spread of Covid 19. The epidemic situation in Mumbai being grave, there was not much of a relaxation in subsequent lockdowns also. In any case, there was unprecedented disruption of judicial wok all over the country. As a matter of fact, it has been such 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 inconsonance 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 to operate shall be added and time shall stand extended accordingly . The extraordinary steps taken suo motu by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court also indicate that this period of lockdown cannot be treated as an ordinary period during which the normal time limits are to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
