TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 1024
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the ground of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off." 2. The assessee has also filed revised grounds of appeal vide application dated 01.05.2017, which reads as under:- 1 That the proceedings invoked u/s. 263 by Ld. Pr. CIT-II, Amritsar are beyond jurisdiction and hence the order passed is perverse in law and void ab initio. 2. That the order u/s. 263 by the Ld. Pr. CIT-II, Amritsar was passed under pressure of the Audit Wing and without independent application of mind which is evident from the letter of the ITO HQ CIT (Audit) and the petition of Assessing Officer to the Pr. CIT-II for passing order u/s. 263 whereas he had stoutly defended the assessment order passed by his predecessor before CIT (Audit). Hence the order u/s. 263 is not sustainable in law. 3. That the Ld. Pr. CIT-II, Amritsar has erred in law and on facts in passing order u/s. 263 since the same is without appreciating the fact that the order of the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue since the assessment order was passed by the AO only after making detailed in depth enquiries as is evi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atedly to the HUF was deposited not in the account of the HUF but into the account of the individual. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR was also unable to substantiate that this issue was examined by the AO and there is any conclusive findings by the AO as per law. From the order of Pr. CIT, it is clear that this issue was not examined by the AO. It was expected from the AO that he has assessed the taxable income as per law. Firstly, the Assessing Officer is investigating officer thereafter he is an adjudicating officer. If the AO failed to carry out adequate enquiry about the alleged transactions in the name of the assessee, which are present in this case, therefore, the Pr. CIT has rightly invoked the provisions of Section 263 of the I.T. Act to reopen the completed assessment. 9. Further in the revised grounds of appeal the assessee has challenged only one issue for invoking the revisionary proceedings by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act without application of mind by the Pr. CIT. It is clear from the order of the Pr. CIT at page 2 that the Pr. CIT before invoking the revisionary power u/s. 263 of the Act has asked for the report of the AO and receipt of the report ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Bench within no more than 90 days from the date of concluding the hearing. It is, however, important to note that the expression "ordinarily" has been used in the said rule itself. This rule was inserted as a result of directions of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant vs. ACIT (2009) 319 ITR 433 (Bom), wherein, it was, inter alia, observed as under: "We, therefore, direct the President of the Appellate Tribunal to frame and lay down the guidelines in the similar lines as are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai (supra) and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the benches of the Tribunal in that behalf. We hope and trust that suitable guidelines shall be framed and issued by the President of the Appellate Tribunal within shortest reasonable time and followed strictly by all the Benches of the Tribunal. In the meanwhile (emphasis, by underlining, supplied by us now), all the revisional and appellate authorities under the Income-tax Act are directed to decide matters heard by them within a period of three months from the date case is closed for judgment". In the rules so framed, as a result of these directions,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll 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 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....