9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e another. 1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in enhancing the taxable income by Rs. 13,30,716/- 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in not allowing indexation on the sale of long term investments; 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming that the deficit of the earlier years cannot be set off against the current year's income; 4} Appellant craves leave to amend or alter the existing grounds or add further grounds of appeal at the time of hearing." 3. Shri V. Mohan, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a charitable trust registered under section 12A of the Income T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esentative for the assessee submitted that since the benefit of section 13 has been withdrawn, the assessee should be granted benefit of indexation.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 ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further contended that the CIT(A) has erred in denying the benefit of set-off of deficit of the earlier years against income of current year. Since the assessment has been made in the case of assessee under normal provisions, the benefit of carry forward and setoff of earlier deficit should be allowed to the assessee. 4. On the other hand, Shri Amit Pratap Singh, representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 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 re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the department that the beneficiaries constituted an AOP. The trustees did not carry on business on behalf of the beneficiaries just as the receivers. The beneficiaries are merely recipients of the income earned by the trust. Accordingly, it was held that the trustees were not assessable as an AOP. In view of the above judgments, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the assessee-trust ought to have been assessed in the status of an individual". After taking into consideration facts of the case and above decision by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, we hold that while completing assessment under normal provisions of the Act, the assesse should be treated as individual. Since, benefit of section 13 has been withdrawn f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 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 lock ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the legal position, the period during which ITA No. 6103 and lockout was in force is to excluded for the purpose of time limits set out in rule 34(5) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. Viewed thus, the exception, to 90-day time-limit for pronouncement of orders, inherent in rule 34(5)(c), with respect to the pronouncement of orders within ninety days, clearly comes into play in the present case. Of course, there is no, and there cannot be any, bar on the discretion of the benches to refix the matters for clarifications because of considerable time lag between the point of time when the hearing is concluded and the point of time when the order thereon is being finalized, but then, in our considered view, no such exercise was required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
