TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 505
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the CBDT has revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the ITAT from the existing limit of Rs. 20 lacs to Rs. 50 lacs. 4. Further, we notice from the record that the department has filed the present appeal challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The brief facts of the case are that AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of bogus purchases made by the assessee. On appeal before Ld. CIT(A), Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty by considering that the levy of penalties is merely on disallowances of purchases and not finding of concealment of any particular to reduce taxable income and also by relying on various judgments, Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with the above order, revenue is in appeal before us. 7. Considered the rival submission and material placed on record, we notice from the record that the present appeal filed by the revenue is below the monetary limit for filing the appeals before the ITAT to Rs. 50 l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was rightly sustained by Tribunal and no substantial question of law arises. In Commissioner of Income-tax v. P. H. I. Seeds India Ltd., 120081 301 ITR 0013-(DeI):It was held that Section 271 (1) (C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is attracted only in those instances where the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income with an intent to 'mislead the Revenue. The Income-tax Act does not envisage or explicitly provide that in every case where the return is not accepted as correct and the assessment is framed at an income higher than that presented and offered for taxation by an assessee in the form of its return, penalty proceedings must be initiated. This proposition must logically 'follow from the use of the word "may" in section 271 in contradistinction to "shall" in section 234.Where two options were possible, adopting one of them could scarcely be viewed as mala fide, with an intent to evade payment of income-tax. Recompense had been provided for in section 234 of the Act by way of levy of interest, which, in the present case, had been paid without demur. In Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income-ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso 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 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 order, and such date shall not ordinarily(emphasis supplied by us now) be a day beyond a further period of 30 days and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given on the noticeboard. 8. Quite clearly, "ordinarily" the order on an appeal should be pronounced by the bench within no more than 90 days from the date of concluding the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... India and vide order dated 6.5.2020 read 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 15 days 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 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 th....