TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1961 (hereinafter referred as to "the Act") for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14. 2. The issue regarding levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is the addition of Rs. 5,15,899/- as made by the Ld. AO in the assessment order on assumption basis. Hence, the case of the assessee is this penalty cannot be levied when the order of quantum was passed on assumption basis. 3. On the other hand, the case of the Revenue is this that during the course of assessment proceeding upon perusal of the evidences in respect of profit of Rs. 2,64,700/- as disclosed in the return of income by the appellant it was found by the Ld. AO that the vouchers for expenditure were not kept upto the mark or were not maintained properly. While agreein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....make certain observation relating to the issue cropped up under present scenario of Covid-19 pandemic as to whether when the hearing of the matter was concluded on 28.02.2020 the order can be pronounced today i.e. on 29.06.2020. The issue has already been discussed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of DCIT vs. JSW Ltd. (ITA Nos. 6264 & 6103/Mum/2018) pronounced on 14.05.2020 in the light of which it is well within the 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 pronoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sdictional 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), all the revisional and appellate authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 26....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 period of 90 days, but then in the pres....