TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, the period of lockdown days need to be excluded. See case of DCIT vs. JSW Limited [ 2020 (5) TMI 359 - ITAT MUMBAI ] - ITA No.6961/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 29-7-2020 - Shri Laliet Kumar, JM And Shri M. Balaganesh, AM For the Assessee : Ms. Urvi Mehta For the Revenue : Shri A Mohan ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.6961/Mum/2012 for A.Y.2003-04 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, in appeal No.CIT(A)-15/Arr.12/12-13 dated 07/09/2012 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 30/12/2005 by the ld. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle(2)(2), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO). 2. At the outset, we would like to state that this appeal is a recalled matter in as much as the ground No.12 raised by the assessee in the original appeal with regard to disallowance made towards provision for warranty of ₹ 23,48,01,000/- while computing book profits u/s.115JB of the Act was not adjudicated by this Tribunal while disposing off the appeal originally vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ely no finding recorded by the ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order as to whether the provision has been made on a scientific basis based on past history of the assessee. Since, the same issue has been set aside to the file of the ld.AO under normal provisions of the Act, we deem it fit and appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play to remand this ground also to the file of the ld. AO as the decision in this case would be depending on the outcome of the decision taken by the ld. AO under normal provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the ground No.12 raised by the assessee is set aside to the file of the ld. AO for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. 4. It is pertinent to mention here that this order is pronounced after a period of 90 days from the date of conclusion of the hearing. In this regard, we place reliance on the decision of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of JSW Ltd in ITA Nos. 6264 6103/Mum/2018 dated 14.5.2020, wherein this issue has been addressed in detail allowing time to pronounce the order beyond 90 days from the date of conclusion of hearing by excluding the days for which the lockdown announced by the Government was in force. The r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ruled 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. 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 epidemi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 situation Hon‟ble Bombay High Court itself has, vide judgment dated 15th April 2020, held that directed while calculating the time f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
