TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 23
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espect of purchase to the tune of Rs. 1,57,03,048/-, upon invoking provision of section 147 of the Act, notice u/s 148 of the Act was served upon the assessee informing the assessee, the reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the A.Y. 2010-11. In response thereto, the assessee by and under a letter dated 06.01.2016 objected to such reopening of the assessment. Subsequently, the assessee submitted the ledger copies of the parties mentioned in the reasons for reopening including the copies of bills. The details of payment which were made by the account payee cheques were also brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer. Further that by a subsequent reply dated 19.02.2016 the details of the parties from which the alleged bogus purchases were made were also provided to the Ld. AO. However, the said assessment was finalised upon making disallowance of Rs. 7,22,128/- i.e. 12.5% of the total amount of Rs. 57,77,025/- in respect to the purchases made from M/s. Prince Trading Company and added to the total income of the assessee which was, in turn, reduced to Rs. 2,88,850/- by adopting 5% of the such purchases of Rs. 57,77,025/- by the Ld. CIT(A).....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs that the assessee purchased from these five parties which has actually been utilised in the contracts undertaken by him and it has further received contracts payments from BMC(Bombay Municipal Corporation). It is a case of the assessee that only upon verification of the actual execution of work, the said Govt. authority has made contract payments to the assessee. In that view of the matter, the assessee claimed those purchases are genuine as in the absence of purchases, no contract work could not have been executed. On the other hand, such plea of the assessee has not been accepted by the Learned Assessing Officer for several reasons. He was of the opinion that the assessee did not produce the purchasers so demanded by the Revenue, neither any evidences were submitted showing genuineness of such transactions. We have carefully considered the order passed by the Ld. AO wherefrom it appears that the Ld. AO did not doubt the sales made. When sales cannot be made without purchase, the fact of purchase cannot be doubted even though they were not made from the same parties as those debited in the books. Thus the AO has rightly sought to verify the claim of purchase made by the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e time limit permitted under Rule 34(5) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 in view of the following observations made therein: "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 8th January 2020, this order thereon is being pronounced today on the day of 14th 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 pronouncement of orders, provides as follows: deals with (5) The pronouncement may be in any of the following manners :- (a) The Bench may pronounce the order immediately upon the conclusion of the hearing. (b) In case where the order is not pronounced immediately on the conclusion of the hearing, the Bench shall give a date for pronouncement. (c) In a case 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 circums....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 dated 6.5.2020 read with order dated 23.3.2020, extended the limitation to exclude not only this lockdown period but also a few more days prior to, and after, the lockdown by observing that "In case the limitation has expired after 15.03.2020 then the period from 15.03.2020 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 15days 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 Marc....