TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 105
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as to "the Act") for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. 2. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the assessment order was passed making addition purely on estimate basis without any base; neither positive facts nor finding has been found so as to make such addition. In that view of the matter it was argued by the Ld. AR that penalty under section 271(1)(c) to the tune of Rs. 1,48,503/- as levied by the AO for filing inaccurate particulars of income by way of making wrong claim of expenditure cannot be said to be justified. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the authorities below. 4. We have heard the respective parties, we have also per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal 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 deals with pronouncement of orders, provides as follows: (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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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), all the revisional and appellate authorities under the Income-tax Act are directed to decide matters heard by them within a period of three months from the date case is closed for judgment". In the ruled so framed, as a result of these directions, the expression "ordinarily" has been inserted in the requirement to pronounce the order within a period of 90 days. The question then arises whether the passing of this order, beyond ninety days, was necessitated by any "extraordinary" circumstances. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n". 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 March 2020 continues to operate shall be added and time shall stand extended accordingly", and also observed that "arrangement continued by an order dated 26th March 2020 till 30th April 2020 shall continue further till 15th June 2020". It has been an unprecedented situation not only in India but all over the world. Government of India has, vide notification dated 19th February 2020, taken the stand that, the corona virus "should be considered a case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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....