TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by: Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis (AR) Revenue by: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh.(DR) ORDER PER AMARJIT SINGH, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 20-07-2018 passed by the CIT(Appeals)-51, Mumbai relevant to the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has raised the following grounds: 1(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ad in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing ld. AO to recalculate the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) on average investments of ₹ 39,59,06,791/- (being average of investments of ₹ 44,94,13,741/- as on 31.03.2014 and investments of ₹ 34,23,99,841 as on 31.03.2015) by considering the following investments: (a) which are capable of generating the taxable income. (b) investments wherein there is no movement made during the year. (c) on which the appellant has not received any exempt income. which wrong and contrary to the facts of the case, the provisions of the Act and Rules made there under. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30-11-2015 declaring ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 99,500 199,500 Quoted investments and also dividend earned Punjab National Bank 1,435,980 1,435,980 Quoted investments About Laboratories 2,345,711 2,345,711 Quoted investments and also dividend earned 4 Current Investments Canara Robeco Savings Plus Fund 87,968,650 164,385,482 Disposals and also dividend earned Canara RobecoTresury Advantage Fund 56,847,068 Disposals and also dividend earned SBIMF SDFS A-11 50,00,000,000 Disposals during the year SBI Mutual Fund (SDFC) 50,000,000 Disposals during t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t charge any interest from loanees. However, admittedly assessee had not claimed any interest expenditure and, therefore, there was no reason for making any addition on the ground of interest being not charged by assessee. Ld. counsel has relied on following decisions for the proposition that only real income can be taxed and not notional income. - ShoorjiVallabhdas Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC); - Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd.v. . CIT 225 ITR 746 (SC); - CIT vs. A. Raman Co. 67 ITR 11(SC); - UCO Bank v. CIT 237 ITR 889 (SC); - Airport Authority of India v. CIT 340 ITR 407 (Del. )(FB); - CIT v. Motor Credit Co. P. Ltd. 127 ITR 572 (Mad.); - JCIT v. Pankaj Oxygen Ltd. 78 TTJ 119 (Nag.) - ACIT vs. Manick Chand Damani 72 TTJ 675 (Cal.). 13.1. After hearing both the parties, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of ld. CIT(A), because the issue that only real income and not notional income is taxable, is no more resintgra in view of aforementioned decisions, particularly when no interest was paid by assessee on its borrowings. We, therefore, confirm the order of ld. CIT(A). This ground is dismissed. 14. In the result, reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning the pronouncement of the order. Accordingly, the order is being pronounced now after the re-opening of the offices. 6.3 Faced with similar facts and circumstances, the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal comprising-off of Hon ble President and Hon ble Vice President, in its recent decision titled as DCIT V/s JSW Limited (ITA Nos. 6264 6103/Mum/2018) order dated 14/05/2020 held as under: - 7. However, before we part with the matter, we must deal with one procedural issue as well. While hearing of these appeals was concluded on 7th January 2020, this order thereon is being pronounced today on 14th day of May, 2020, much after the expiry of 90 days from the date of conclusion of hearing. We are also alive to the fact that rule 34(5) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963, which deals with pronouncement of orders, provides as follows: (5)The pronouncement may be in any of the following manners: - (a) The Bench may pronounce the order immediately upon the conclusion of the hearing. (b) In case where the order is not pronounced immediately on the conclusion of the hearing, the Bench shall give a date for pronouncement. (c) In a case where n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 epidemic situation in Mumbai being grave, there was not much of a relaxation in subsequent lockdowns also. In any case, there was unprecedented disruption of judicial wok all over the country. As a matter of fact, it has been such an unprecedented situation, causing disruption in the functioning of judicial machinery, that Hon ble Supreme Court of India, in an unprecedented order in the history of India and vide order dated 6.5.2020 read with order dated 23.3.2020, extended the limitation to exclude not only this lockdown period but also a few more days prior to, and after, the lockdown by observing that In case the limitation has expired after 15.03.2020 then the period from 15.03.2020 till the date on which the lockdown is lifted in the jurisdictional area where the dispute lies or where the cause of action arises shall be extended for a period of 15 days after the lifting of lockdown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 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 for disposal of matters made timebound by this Court, the period for which the order dated 26th March 2020 continues to operate shall be added and time shall stand extended accordingly . The extraordinary steps taken suo motu by Hon ble jurisdictional High Court and Hon ble Supreme Court also indicate that this period of lockdown cannot be treated as an ordinary period during which the normal time limits are to remain in force. In our considered view, even without the words ordinarily , in the light of the above analysis of the legal position, the period during which 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
