TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of initial expenses in certain cases, there is no other statutory provision for allowing revenue expenses in a phased or spread out manner. Expenses are required to be claimed and allowed only in the year in which the expenses are incurred or the liability towards such expenses accrued. Revenue expenditure is essentially allowable in the year to which it pertains or in which it is incurred. However, to support his claim, the assessee has also relied upon the decision in the case of Calico Dyeing Printing Works Vs. CIT [ 1958 (3) TMI 59 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein claim of the assessee was allowed in similar circumstances. We are of the view that the declining of the claim of commission expenses is nowhere justifiable, hence, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) on the issue. The claim is hereby allowed in the relevant year. Accordingly, we allowed the claim of the assessee. - I.T.A. No.5242/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 25-8-2020 - Shri Shamim Yahya, AM And Shri Amarjit Singh, JM For the Assessee : Shri Naresh Kumar For the Revenue : Shri V. Justin ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM: The assessee had filed the present appeal against the order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a sum of ₹ 1,20,19,262/- was shown as commission expenses in the name of one Shri Soham Gopal Narang. The amount was shown outstanding in the Balance-Sheet as on 31.03.2012. Thereafter, notice was given and after the reply of the notice, the commission in sum of ₹ 1,20,19,260/- was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. The total income of the assessee was assessed as Nil. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the AO, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. 4. We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. In brief, the claim of the assessee was declined by the AO on the basis of this fact that the receipt from the sale of FSI was not offered to tax, therefore, the expenses was not liable to be allowed. The Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the assessee has paid 2% commission on sale of FSI 53.33 crores for the year under consideration and accordingly it is well-settled principle of the real estate sector/business that when the deals for sale of land/building/FSI or whatever named called takes place i.e. i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 Before parting, we would like to enumerate the circumstances which have led to delay in pronouncement of this order. The hearing of the matter was concluded on 07/02/2020 and in terms of Rule 34(5) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the matter was required to be pronounced within a total period of 90 days. As per sub-clause (c) of Rule 34(5), every endeavor was to be made to pronounce the order within 60 days after conclusion of hearing. However, where it is not practicable to do so on the ground of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, the bench could fix a future date of pronouncement of the order which shall not ordinarily be a day beyond a further period of 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 circum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given on the notice board. 8. Quite clearly, 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 jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein Their Lordships had, inter alia, directed that 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 pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till 15th June 2020 . 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. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
