TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 1025
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. That the order of the ITO-TDS, Amritsar as well as the order of the Learned CIT(A) are both against the facts of the case and are untenable in law. 2. That the worthy CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of the case and merely relied on order of the ITO(TDS) and without any rhyme and reason, the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in the eyes of law and is liable to be cancelled. 3. That the authorities below did not appreciated that there was no liability on the assessee to deposit TDS u/s. 201(1)/201(1A). 4. That the order of the ITO, Ward-TDS, Amritsar, passed u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) dated 24.03.2016 thereby creating demand of Rs. 1,11,580/- is illegal, invalid and void ab initio and the same is liable to be cancelled. Similarly the worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 5. That the authorities below did not appreciate that there was no liability u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) to deduct the tax at source. As such the worthy CIT(A) should have cancelled the demand of Rs. 1,11,580/-. 6. That the authorities below did not appreciate that this case does not fall within the mischief of section 201(1)/201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961. As such the demand created ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that for A.Y. 2015-16 i.e. Rs. 7,53,933/- On the basis of his aforesaid observations the ITO(TDS) worked out the liability of the assessee U/ss. 201(1)/201(1A) for the aforesaid years i.e. A.Y. 2013-14, A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16, as under:- S. No. F.Y. Total Dhami/ Commission paid on purchase of wheat as per Annexure-A TDS @ 10% u/s 194-H Interest u/s 201(1A) Total Amount 1. 2012-13 7,53,933/- 75,393/- 36,187/- 1,11,580/- 2. 2013-14 7,53,933/- 75,393/- 27,137/- 1,02,530/- 3. 2014-15 7,53,933/- 75,393/- 18,097/- 93,490/- 3. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the ITO(TDS) before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) did not find favour with the contentions advanced by the assessee and upheld the order passed by the ITO(TDS) U/ss. 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. The Learned Authorized Representative (for short A.R.) for the assessee at the very outset of the hearing of the appeal submitted, that as the respective dealers to whom the impugned dhami/commission was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yees i.e. the dealers in wheat to whom the aforesaid sum had been paid/credited had taken into account the impugned sum of dhami/commission while computing their income in their returns of income filed under Sec. 139 of the Act for the captioned years under consideration, and have also paid the taxes on the income declared in such respective returns of income, therefore, the assessee cannot be treated as being in default as per the 'first proviso' to Sec. 201(1) of the Act. Also, it has been stated by the Ld. A.R., that certificates from the accountant in the prescribed form i.e. 'Form No. 26A' verifying the aforesaid facts had been obtained by the assessee. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered view that the matter in all fairness requires to be restored to the file of the ITO(TDS) for verifying the veracity of the aforesaid claim of the assessee. In the course of the 'set aside' proceedings, the ITO(TDS) shall verify the maintainability of the claim of the assessee that now when the requisite conditions envisaged in the 'first proviso' to Sec. 201(1) of the Act had been complied on its part, it cannot be treated as being in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 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 rule so framed, as a result of these directions, the expression "ordinarily" has been inserted in the requirement to pronounce the order within a period of 90 days. The question then arises whether or not the passing of this order, beyond a period of ninety days in the case before us was necessitated by any "extraordinary" circumstances. 8. We find that the aforesaid issue after exhaustive deliberations had 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 14/05/2020, wherein it was observed as under: "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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. 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 tenets of law being enacted on the basis of pragmatism, and that is how the law is required to interpreted. The interpretation so assigned by us is not only in consonance with the letter and spirit of rule 34(5) but is also a pragmatic approach at a time when a disaster, notified under the Disaster Management Act 2005, is causing unprecedented disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club Vs. DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon'ble Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days, but then in the present situa....