TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent appeal against the order dated 24.08.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -08, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ] relevant to the A.Y.2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: - 1. Disallowance of interest ₹ 6,36,555/- (i) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-8, Mumbai (hereinafter referred as the learned CIT(A)) erred in confirming the interest disallowance of ₹ 6,36,555/- disregarding the fact that the fact that the loan was used for the purpose of horse-trading and horse racing business. (ii) On the facts and circumstances, your appellant states that the alleged expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning income from horse trading and horse racing business and therefore, the same ought to have been allowed. (iii) On the facts and circumstances your appellant prays that the alleged claim on account of various expenses may be allowed. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 29.09.2013 declaring total income to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30 days. Thus, a period of 60 days has been provided under the extant rule for pronouncement of the order. This period could be extended by the bench on the ground of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. However, the extended period shall not ordinarily exceed a period of 30 days. 6.2 Although the order was well drafted as well as approved before the expiry of 90 days, however, unfortunately, on 24/03/2020, a nationwide lockdown was imposed by the Government of India in view of adverse circumstances created by pandemic covid-19 in the country. The lockdown was extended from time to time which crippled the functioning of most of the government departments including Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The situation led to unprecedented disruption of judicial work all over the country and the order could not be pronounced despite lapse of considerable period of time. The situation created by pandemic covid-19 could be termed as unprecedented and beyond the control of any human being. The situation, thus created by this pandemic, could never be termed as ordinary circumstances and would warrant exclusion of lockdown period for the purpose of aforesaid rule governing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nil 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 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, e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 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. 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 excludingat 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
