TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me on 26.09.13 declaring total income of Rs. 30,83,330/-. Further, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. In response, AR of the assessee filed the relevant information and attended to the proceedings of the case. 4. After considering the submission of assessee, AO has made two additions i.e. a) Rs. 63,93,330/- i.e 40% out of total retainership expenses of Rs. 1,59,83,328/- , according to AO, it is excessive and not supported by the evidences and b) Rs. 3,77,971/- on account of difference in the income as per TDS claimed in return of income and 26AS. Accordingly, AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. The AO has also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and based on the submission of assessee, Ld. CIT(A) sustained 30% of disallowance instead of 40% of total retainership at Rs. 1,59,83,328/- which works out to Rs. 47,94,998/-. Ld. CIT(A) further sustained the addition made by AO on the discrepancy found in the TDS as per return of income and 26AS. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) partly allow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO are not conclusive as the appellant failed to submit the purpose and nature of expenditure etc incurred on the temporary hired staff, which could have helped in determining the approximate expenditure. The AO has also noticed that the appellant failed to submit the evidences such as bank statements, identity proof, copy of return with computation of the temporary hired staff and the AO has also pointed out some common anomaly features as discussed in Para 3, A to K , page 6 in the assessment order. Keeping in mind the above facts, the disallowance is restricted to 30% instead of 40% of Rs. 1,59,83,328/- which works out to Rs. 47,94,998/- and the same is added to the total income of the appellant. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 15,98,332/- i.e. Rs. 63,93,330-47,94,998. The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed. 6.0. Ground No.2 is directed against the addition of Rs. 3,77,971/- on account of discrepancy as per TDS in return income and TDS reflected in 26AS. In this regard, the AO has made addition on the basis of the discrepancy found in the TDS as per return income and 26AS, therefore, the addition made by the AO is confirmed and it is not a case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anuary 2020, this order thereon is being pronounced today on 14th day of May, 2020, much after the expiry of 90 days from the date of conclusion of hearing. We are also 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 noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such an unprecedented situation, causing disruption in the functioning of judicial machinery, that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in an unprecedented order in the history of 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 limitationhas 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 20....