TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (8) TMI 708
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cally in Form No.10A the Act on 10.03.2019 seeking registration u/s.12A of the Act, 1961. However, the CIT(E) rejected the application of the assessee holding that the assessee trust does not exist for the purpose of charity, rather it is working commercially, which is defeating its own aims and objectives. 4. Aggrieved from the order of CIT(E), the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. AR before us filed a paper book which is placed on record and submitted that the assessee trust has fulfilled both the conditions as required to allow the registration u/s.12A of the Act i.e. charitable activities and genuineness of the trust. Ld. AR also submitted that no proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard was provided to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1962, which envisages the procedure for pronouncement orders, provides as follows: 34(5) The pronouncement may be in any of the following manners: - (a) The Bench may pronounce the order immediately upon the conclusion of hearing. (b) in case where the order is not pronounced immediately on the conclusion of the hearing, the Bench shall give a date of 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the expression "ordinarily" has been inserted in the requirement to pronounce the order within a period of 90days. The question then arises whether the passing of this order, beyond ninety days, was necessitated by any "extraordinary" circumstances. 9. We also find that the aforesaid issue has been answered by a coordinate Bench of the Tribunal viz; ITAT, Mumbai 'F' Bench in DCIT, Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai vs JSW Limited & ors (ITA No.6264/Mum/18 dated 14.5.2020, wherein, it was observed as under: " 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 the spread of Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 June2020". 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 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 e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 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 April2020, 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 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 positi....