M/S. MASTER JASWANT SINGH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,LUDHIANA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH

आदेश आदेश Per L.P.Sahu, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(E), Chandigarh, dated 26.03.2018. 2. As per the office note, there is a delay of 175 days in filing the appeal. In this regard, ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application dated 23.11.2018 along with affidavit for condonation of delay, copies of which are placed on record. Ld. DR has also not objected to condone the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. Considering the application of the assessee, wherein the assessee has stated sufficient reason for condonation of delay, we condone the delay of 175 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee and appeal is heard finally.

2

u/s.12AA of the Act.

however, the CIT(E) rejected the application for grant of registration on the ground that the assessee-society failed to discharge its onus to prove its income as free from exigibility of taxes.

before the Tribunal.

therefore, the CIT(E) may kindly be directed to grant registration

u/s.12A of the Act after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and considering the submissions of the assessee.

therefore, assessee’s appeal should be dismissed.

perused the material on record. The sole dispute is with respect to rejection of registration u/s.12AA of the Act. On perusal of the order of CIT(E), we find that the application of the assessee rejected by the 3 CIT(E) ex-parte holding therein that the assessee could not prove its claim that its income from exigibility of taxes. However, the ld. AR

before us submitted that the assessee is having complete details it fulfills all the conditions as required for grant of registration and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate its claim before the CIT(E).

Accordingly, in the interest of justice and considering the prayer of the ld. AR of the assessee, we provide one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiates its claim with supporting evidence of genuineness of objects and activities of the assessee society before the CIT(E) and the CIT(E) is directed to consider the submission of the assessee and pass the order accordingly. Thus, the ground of appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

of the captioned appeal was concluded on 06.02.2020, however, this order is being pronounced much after the expiry of 90 days from the date of conclusion of hearing. We find that Rule 34(5) of the Income

tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1962, which envisages the procedure for pronouncement orders, provides as follows:

34(5) The pronouncement may be in any of the following manners: - (a) The Bench may pronounce the order immediately upon the conclusion of hearing. (b) in case where the order is not pronounced immediately on the conclusion of the hearing, the Bench shall give a date of 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 4 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 be a day beyond a further period of 30 days and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given on the notice board. As such, “ordinarily”, the order on an appeal should be pronounced by 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 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, the expression

“ordinarily” has been inserted in the requirement to pronounce the order within a period of 90 days. The question then arises whether the passing of this order, beyond ninety days, was necessitated by any “extraordinary” circumstances.

Central Circle-3(2), & ors (ITA

No.6264/Mum/18 dated 14.5.2020, wherein, it was observed as under:

5 “ 9. 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 nationwide lockdown, for 21 days, to prevent the spread of Covid 19 epidemic, and this lockdown was extended from time to time. As a matter of fact, even before this formal nationwide lockdown, the functioning of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai was severely restricted on account of lockdown by the Maharashtra Government, and on account of strict enforcement of health advisories with a view of checking spread of Covid 19. The epidemic situation in Mumbai being grave, there was not much of a relaxation in subsequent lockdowns also. In any case, there was unprecedented disruption of judicial wok all over the country. As a matter of fact, it has been 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 afew more days prior to, and after, the lockdown by observing that “In 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 juri ictional 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 June2020”. 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.

Bombay High Court and the Tribunal, we are of the considered view

that the period during which the lockdown was in force shall stand

excluded for the purpose of working out the time limit for pronouncement of orders, as envisaged in Rule 34(5) of the Appellate

Tribunal Rules, 1963.”

7 आदेश आदेश क" आदेश आदेश क" क" "ितिल-प क" "ितिल-प "ितिल-प अ.े-षत "ितिल-प अ.े-षत अ.े-षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अ.े-षत 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant- Shiv Shakti Mandir, 180, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar