TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 304
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09. 2. We have heard the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. It appears that the penalty has been deleted on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. reported in [(2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC)] whereby and whereunder imposition of penalty on the sole reason of wrong claim or excess claim for deduction which was not found sustainable by the authority has been nullified. It also appears and as submitted by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee that in assessee's own case, the Jurisdictional High Court in Tax Appeal No. 52 of 2011 has been pleased to decide the identical issue in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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 circumstances of the case, the Bench shall fix a future day for pronouncement of the or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. 9. Let us in this light revert to the prevailing situation in the country. On 24th March, 2020, Hon'ble Prime Minister of India took the bold step of imposing a nationwide lockdown, for 21 days, to prevent spread of Covid 19 epidemic, and this lockdown was extended from time to time. As a matter of fact, even before this formal nationwide lockdown, the functioning of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai was severely restricted on account of lockdown by the Maharashtra Government, and on account of strict enforce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20". 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 of natural calamity and FMC (i.e. force majeure clause) may be invoked, wherever considered appropriate, following the due procedure...". The term 'force majeure' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, as 'an event or effect that can be neither anticipated nor controlled' When such is the position, and it is officially so notified by the Government of India and the Covid-19 epidemic has been notified as a disaster under the National Disaster Management Act, 2005, and also in the light of the discussions above, the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20 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 that this period of lockdown cannot be treated as an ordinary period during which the normal time limits are to remain in force. In our considered view, even without the words "ordinarily", in the light of the above analysis of the legal position, the period during which lockout was in force is to excluded for the purpose of time limits set out in rule 34(5) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. Viewed thus, the exception, to 90-day time-limit for pronouncement of orders, inherent in rule 34(5)(c), with respect to the pronouncement of orders wi....