TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee s computation of capital loss on sale of mutual funds on the premise that the assessee being charitable trust is not eligible for indexation on cost of acquisition. The denial of indexation has caused double whammy to the assessee. The assessee loses the benefit of section 13 and is assessed under normal provisions of the Act. At the same time under normal provisions, the assessee is denied the benefit of indexation. In Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Mafatlal Public Charitable Trust [2000 (9) TMI 45 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] in a somewhat similar case, where the trust had made investments in violation of the provisions of section 11(5) and was denied the benefit of section 13; the assessee s claim of deduction under section 80L was also denied by the Revenue. Hon ble High Court following the judgement rendered in the case of CIT v. Marsons Beneficiary Trust [ 1990 (7) TMI 37 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] upheld the decision of Tribunal in directing the Revenue to make assessment by treating the assessee as an individual. Thus we hold that while completing assessment under normal provisions of the Act, the assessee should be treated as individual. Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 11 to the assessee as the assessee had made investments in violation of the provisions of section 11(5) of the Act, as well as, denied the benefit of indexation. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee fairly admitted that by making investment in mutual funds, the assessee has violated the provisions of section 11 of the Act. However, benefit of indexation cannot be denied to the assessee as the assessment is made in the case of assessee for the impugned assessment year under regular provisions. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee contested that while computing long term capital gain/loss the assessee should be treated as individual and not as trust. In support of his contention the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Mafatlal Public Charitable Trust reported as 247 ITR 1. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that since the benefit of section 13 has been withdrawn, the assessee should be granted benefit of indexation. The assessee cannot be deprived of both the benefits. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. At the same time under normal provisions, the assessee is denied the benefit of indexation. 7. The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Shardaben Bhagubhai Mafatlal Public Charitable Trust (supra) in a somewhat similar case, where the trust had made investments in violation of the provisions of section 11(5) and was denied the benefit of section 13; the assessee s claim of deduction under section 80L was also denied by the Revenue. The Hon ble High Court following the judgement rendered in the case of CIT v. Marsons Beneficiary Trust reported as 188 ITR 224 (Bom.) upheld the decision of Tribunal in directing the Revenue to make assessment by treating the assesse as an individual. The relevant extract of the judgement reads as under: 12. .. In the case of Sodra Devi (supra), the Supreme Court was considering the scope of section 16(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In the said judgment, the Supreme Court has held that the word 'assessee' was wide enough to cover not only an individual but also an HUF, company, local authority, firm and an AOP or the partners of the firm or the members of the AOP. Tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was heard on 10/02/2020. As per Rule 34(5) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, (ITAT Rules, 1963), the order was required to be ordinarily pronounced within a period of 90 days from the date of conclusion of the hearing of appeal. The instant appeal was heard prior to the lockdown declared by the Hon ble Prime Minister on 24-03-2020 in view of COVID-19 pandemic. The lockdown was forced due to extra ordinary circumstances caused by world wide spread of COVID-19. Thereafter, the lockdown was extended from time to time. Therefore, the pronouncement of order beyond the period of 90 days from the date of hearing is not under ordinary circumstances. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. JSW Ltd., ITA No.6264/Mum/2018 for A.Y 2013-14 decided on 14/05/2020, under identical circumstances, after considering the provisions of Rule 34(5) of the ITAT Rules, 1963, judgements rendered By Hon ble Apex Court and the Hon ble Bombay High Court on the issue of time limit for pronouncement of orders by the Tribunal and the circumstances leading to lockdown held:- 10. In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that rather than ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
