TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 25
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) erred in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) in respect of unexplained cash credit to the extent of Rs. 3,41,000. 3. The issue in appeal lies in a very narrow compass of material facts. The assessee before us is an individual and is engaged in business as proprietor of Mayur Ply-n-Veers and Mahavir Aluminium. As the assessee did not allegedly cooperate in the scrutiny assessment proceedings, his income from business was assessed, on the basis of estimation by the Assessing Officer, at Rs. 1,00,00,000. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings, inter alia, under section 271(1)(c). However, when matter was carried in appeal before the CIT(A), learned CIT(A) was of the view that "it will be fair and reasonable to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y in respect of this addition of Rs. 3,41,000. The addition was made by the CIT(A), who has himself termed it as "enhancement", and there was no specific initiation of penalty by the CIT(A). In the absence of specific satisfaction recorded by the CIT(A) that the penalty is required to be initiated in respect of the related addition of Rs. 3,41,000, in our considered view, the impugned penalty is devoid of a legally sustainable foundation. We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to delete the impugned penalty. The assessee gets the relief accordingly. 6. The assessee thus succeeds in his appeal. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s a result of directions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein Their Lordships had, inter alia, directed that "We, therefore, direct the President of the Appellate Tribunal to frame and lay down the guidelines in 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), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 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 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lities in mind while interpreting the time limit for the pronouncement of the order. Law is not brooding omnipotence in the sky. It is a pragmatic tool of 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 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 p....