TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 305
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng return income vide order dated 14-11-2011. 4. However, the learned CIT under section 263 of the Act, found certain defects in the assessment framed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act. As such the assessee has purchased a piece of land at Rs, 24,701/- dated 11 March 1981 which was valued as on 1 April 1981 at Rs. 5,50,000/- for the purpose of working out the capital gain under section 45 of the Act. As per the learned CIT the value of the property cannot be increased to such high-value within a short span of 22 days. Accordingly, the learned CIT called the assessee as well as the valuer who valued the property at Rs. 5,50,000/- as on 1 April 1981. But both of them failed to make any satisfactory reply. Accordingly the learned CIT held the order of the AO as erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of revenue and directed to take the value of the land as on 1 April 1981 at Rs. 24,701/- while working out the capital gain. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The learned AR before us submitted that the AO has no power to substitute the value shown by the assessee as on 1 April 1981 under the provisions of section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O for ascertaining the fair market value as on 1.4.1981 also, we find that such reference was not competent. We have noticed that prior to the amendment in section 55A with effect from 1.7.2012 in a case, the value of the asset claimed by the assessee is in accordance with the estimate made by the Registered Valuer, if the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the value so claimed was less than its fair market value as on 1.4.1981. It would not be the case of the Assessing Officer that the value of the asset shown as on 1.4.1981 was less than the fair market value. Such clause, therefore, as it stood at the relevant time, had no application to the valuation as on 1.4.1981. We are conscious that with effect from 1.7.2012, the expression now used in clause (a) of section 55A is "is at variance with its fair market value". The situation may, therefore, be different after 1.7.2012. We are, however, concerned with the period prior thereto. Clause (b) of section 55A is in two parts and permits a reference to DVO if the Assessing Officer is of the opinion that (i) the fair market value of the asset exceeds the value of the asset so claimed by the assessee by more than such percentage ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e with effect from 01-07-2012 which is prospective in nature. Thus amended provisions cannot be applied in the year under consideration. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment order framed under section 143(3) of the Act. Accordingly we hold that the order framed under section 263 of the Act is not sustainable and hence we quashed the same. Thus the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 12. Before we part with the issue/appeal as discussed above, it is pertinent to note that the clause (c) of rule 34 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963 requires the bench to make endeavour to pronounce the order within 60 days from the conclusion of the hearing. However the period of 60 days can be extended under exceptional circumstances but the same should not ordinarily be further extended beyond another 30 days. In simple words the total time available to the Bench is of 90 days upon the conclusion of the hearing. However, during the prevailing circumstances where the entire world is facing the unprecedented challenge of Covid 2019 outbreak, resulting the lockdown in the country, the orders though substantially prepared but could not be pronounced for the unavoida....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nly in India but all over the world. Government of India has, vide notification dated 19th February 2020, taken the stand that, the coronavirus "should be considered a case of natural calamity and FMC (i.e. force majeure clause) maybe 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 period during which lockdown was in force can be anything but an "ordinary" period. 10. In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that rather than taking a pedantic view of the rule requiring pronouncement of orders within 90 days, disregarding the important fact that the entire country was in lockdown, we should compute the period of 90 days by excluding at least the period during which the lockdown was in force. We must factor ground realities in mind while interpret....