TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 595
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the death of assessee Shri Natwar B. Waghela. After examining the affidavit we are satisfied that the delay in filing of the cross objections is not deliberate and is for the bonafide reasons explained therein. Thus, the delay of 167 days in filing of cross objections is condoned and the same are admitted to be heard along with the appeal of Revenue. 3. Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, representing the Department submitted that the Assessing Officer reopened assessment for assessment year 2009-10, as the assessee had indulged in bogus purchase of machinery from declared hawala dealers. During the course of reassessment proceedings, notices under section 133(6) of the Act were issued to the vendor of the machine i.e. M/s. Span Enterprises as well to the party who had allegedly installed the machine i.e. Jupiter Graphics. The notices were sent to the respective parties on the addresses furnished by the assessee. However, the notices were received back unserved from the Postal Authorities with the remark "Left". Summons under section 131 of the Act were also issued to M/s. Jupiter Graphics, however the same could not be served. Further, the assessee failed to produce the vendor of the machi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the fact that the same was not debited to the P&L Account. 5. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. The Revenue in its appeal has assailed the findings of first appellate authority in deleting the addition of Rs. 57,36,933/- in respect of bogus purchases and further allowing assessee's claim of depreciation on printing machine. The assessee purportedly purchased Offset printing machine from M/s. Span Enterprises. The Assessing Officer in order to verify genuineness of the purchase issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to the vendor of the machine. The notice was received back unserved with the remarks 'Left'. The Assessing Officer thereafter, sent Inspector to the address who reported that the vendor was not available at the address furnished by the assessee. Similar was the fate of the notice and the visit by Inspector at the premises of M/s. Jupiter Graphics, a firm instrumental in installation of the machine at assessee's premises. After examining the material available on record, we observed that the Inspector never visited the premises of assessee to verify existence of the machine at the assessee's si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at while responding to the notice the assessee asked for the reasons recorded for reopening, as well as objected to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee referred to the said reply at page 27 of the Paper Book. The Assessing Officer furnished reasons for reopening on 07/07/2014. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that it is a well settled law that without disposing of objections by passing a speaking order the assessment order would be bad in law. 9. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative vehemently supported the findings of CIT (A) in rejecting assessee's ground challenging validity of reopening. 10. Both sides heard. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of G.K.N. Drive Shafts India Ltd. vs. ITO, 259 ITR 19(SC) has laid down the procedure to be followed by the Assessing Officer for disposal of the objections and also the time line for filing of objections by the assessee in the case of reopening of assessment. For the sake of completeness the relevant extract of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court is reproduced herein below:- "We clarify that when a notice under section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of COVID-19. Thereafter, the lockdown was extended from time to time. Therefore, the pronouncement of order beyond the period of 90 days from the date of hearing is not under "ordinary" circumstances. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. JSW Ltd., ITA No.6264/Mum/2018 for A.Y 2013-14 decided on 14/05/2020, under identical circumstances, after considering the provisions of Rule 34(5) of the ITAT Rules, 1963, judgements rendered By Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on the issue of time limit for pronouncement of orders by the Tribunal and the circumstances leading to lockdown held:- "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 interpreting the time 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 ....