TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 830
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er referred to as Act ]. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- "1. The impugned penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 20.03.2020 is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be quashed. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in dismissing the appeal holding that the same was barred by limitation u/s 249(2) of the Act without appreciating the facts and the judicial guideline available on this subject. Hence the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) may be quashed and the appeal may be held as maintainable before the First Appellate Authority. 3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the fac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant. The observations made by the undersigned are as below:- 3.2 The appellant has filed the appeal on 02.06.2020 against the order received on 20.03.2020, which is belated as per Section 249(2) of the I.T.Act, 1961. Moreover, the appellant in para no. 14 of Form 35 has answered 'No' in response to the query that 'whether there is delay in filing appeal? In this way the appellant has misrepresented the facts in respect of the delay in filing of first appeal, hence the appeal filed by the appellant is barred by limitation. Considering the above facts, it is clear that there is no reasonable cause of delay in filing the appeal. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is not admitted and condonation of delay is not granted. 4. As ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 till further orders to be passed by this Court in present proceedings." It was further observed vide order dated 22.05.2020 by the Hon'ble Court that "in the 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." Even thereafter, the Hon'ble Court had been extending time limits again and again for all the concerned to complete their actions which were getting barred by limitation as also time limit for filing replies and making compliance for the notices were also extended. Recently the Hon'bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of proceedings." Accordingly, there is no delay as such the entire period is fully covered by the order of Apex Court. The entire period from 20th March, 2020 from the date of the receipt of the Order CIT(A) to 2nd June,2020, (date of filing of the appeal before the CIT(A)) was covered by the Covid period and by the aforesaid judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court itself considered the Covid-Period to be the best reasonable cause contributing the delay and granted condonation of delay in all the case. Therefore, the CIT(A) incorrectly held that there was no reasonable cause of delay moreover it is also wrong to say appellant misrepresented the facts because in this view of the matter the appellant correctl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01-03-2022. In the event of actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01-03-2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.'' We find that there is nationwide Covid 19 Pandemic situation which is beyond the control of the human being and the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time and the ld. CIT(A) should have considered this aspect of the case while deciding the appeal of the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, 167 ITR 471 observed as under:- ''The Legislature has conferred power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the....