TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 577
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t given any finding on the Factual discrepancies in the order of learned A.O. Assessee had filed partywise chart showing factual discrepancies as per the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT. The factual discrepancies pointed out were on the basis of lease deeds and various details filed before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings and not on the basis of any additional evidence. The contents of the lease deed are not found false by A.O. C. The Hon'ble ITAT after reproducing in para 6.1 of its order the contentions of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) regarding factual discrepancies and inaccuracies between the assessment order and the penalty order and the relevant observations from the remand report dated 21.11 .06 submitted by the Assessing Officer to the learned CIT(A) wherein after verification the assessing officer not only confirmed that no details are available in the folder to verify the facts contended by the assessee but further stated that there could be another folder containing the relevant details from which the facts stated by the assessee can be verified, has nowhere in its order dealt with this issue and adjudicated on Ground Nos 4 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arily be a day beyond a further period of 30 days and due notice of the date of fixed shall be given to the parties. Now, the plea raised by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that there were no exceptional or extraordinarily circumstances of the case for which the order could not be pronounced within 60 days from the date of hearing and as such the order was barred by limitation. Such a contention of the Ld. Counsel, in our view, is misconceived. The only inference that can be drawn from the above provision is that the order should be pronounced promptly or as soon as it may be possible. In our view, even if, the order is pronounced beyond the period of 90 days, that can neither be construed to have been vitiated or ceased to have the force of law, nor the same can be termed as beyond the period of limitation. So far the words used 'exceptional and extraordinarily circumstances of the case' are concerned, the inference that can be drawn that the relevant factors such as complexity of the matter, number of issues involved, lengthy arguments and discussions involved or the issue being of such importance that it requires more time and efforts, difference of opinion between the ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the order or that some clarifications are required or that a fresh hearing is required. Further the word 'ordinarily' as mentioned in clause (c) of rule 34(5) is sufficient to explain that the period of further 30 days beyond the period of 60 days from the date of hearing, is not the end point and in special circumstances, order can be pronounced beyond the such further period of 30 days also. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the another decision of the Tribunal in the case of "Gift Holding (P.) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer" [2012] 18 taxmann.com 103 (Mum.), wherein, the Tribunal has made following observations in this respect: "Thus, as per Sub-rule (5) of Rule 34 of the Income Tax Appellate Rules, 1963, in case where the order is not pronounced immediately on conclusion of the hearing and no date of pronouncement is given then every endeavour shall be made by the Bench to pronounce the order within a period of 60 days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded. This Sub-rule further facilitate provides that the pronouncement of the order after the period of 60 days ordinarily be within further period of 30 days provides that due notice of the date f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 60 days or 90 days, can be said to have been barred by limitation. Further such a contention that the order was pronounced beyond the period of 60 days can not validly be raised in a petition u/s 254 of the Act, as the same can not be said to be an error apparent on record. 5. So far as the other contentions raised by the Ld. Counsel vide para Nos. B, C, D & E are concerned, we find that the Ld. Counsel has raised the points about the factual and legal merits of the case which cannot be termed as an error apparent on record and thus would not fall within the purview of the provisions of section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. We have gone through the order dated 10.10.2014 of this Tribunal and we find that the contentions raised by the petitioner vide paras B, C & E have been thoroughly examined, dealt with and discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned order. So far the contention raise vide Para 'D', about the reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'MAK Data Pvt. Ltd.' (2013) 358 ITR 593 SC is concerned, the Ld. Counsel could not point out as to how the said decision was not applicable to the case of the assessee or how the application of the ....