TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such. On re-verification at the end of the Assessing Officer it comes out that the tax effect of more than ₹ 50 lakhs is being involved in the appeal or the appeal falls within the exemption clause of the Circular, then the Revenue will be at liberty to file Miscellaneous Application to recall the Tribunal order. The application should be filed within time limit prescribed in the Act. - ITA No.3743/Mum/2016 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2020 - Pramod Kumar (Vice President) And Amarjit Singh (Judicial Member) Anand Mohanfor the appellant None for the respondent ORDER Pramod Kumar, VP: 1. By way of this appeal, the Assessing Officer has challenged correctness of the order dated 29thFebruary, 2016 passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -maintainable as held by this Tribunal in the case of ITO Vs. Dinesh Madhavlal Patel in ITA No.1398/Ahd/2004 for AY 1998-99 vide a consolidated order dated 14.08.2019. 4. The learned Departmental Representative fairly admitted that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than the limit prescribed by the aforesaid CBDT Circular. 5. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of applicable legal position. As learned counsel rightly contends, this appeal of the Revenue is no longer maintainable in view of the recent CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. The mandatory limit for cases in which Revenue can challenge the relief granted by the CIT(A) no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where no date of pronouncement is given by the Bench, every endeavour shall be made by the Bench to pronounce the order within 60 days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do on the ground of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the case, the Bench shall fix a future day for pronouncement of the order, and such date shall not ordinarily (emphasis supplied by us now) be a day beyond a further period of 30 days and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given on the notice board. 8. Quite clearly, ordinarily the order on an appeal should be pronounced by the bench within no more than 90 days from the date of concluding the hearing. It is, however, important to not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposing 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rce 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... words ordinarily , in the light of the above analysis of the legal position, the period during which lockout was in force is to excluded for the purpose of time limits set out in rule 34(5) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. Viewed thus, the exception, to 90-day time-limit for pronouncement of orders, inherent in rule 34(5)(c), with respect to the pronouncement of orders within ninety days, clearly comes into play in the present case. Of course, there is no, and there cannot be any, bar on the discretion of the benches to refix the matters for clarifications because of considerable time lag between the point of time when the hearing is concluded and the point of time when the order thereon is being finalized, but then, in our consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
