TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t referred as Ld. CIT(A) , Mumbai, dated 03.10.2017 for Assessment Year (in short AY) 2013-14. 2. At the outset, it is noticed that none appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of calls and even no application for adjournment was moved. On the other hand, Ld. DR is present in the court and is ready with arguments. Therefore, we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte with the assistance of the Ld. DR and the material placed on record. 3. The brief facts of the case are, assessee is an individual in the profession of accountancy and consultancy run under the name and style Kishor S. Shenoy Associates and filed its return of income on 26.09.13 declaring total income of ₹ 30,83,330/-. Further, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. In response, AR of the assessee filed the relevant information and attended to the proceedings of the case. 4. After considering the submission of assessee, AO has made two additions i.e. a) ₹ 63,93,330/- i.e 40% out of total retainership expenses of ₹ 1,59,83,328/- , according to AO, it is excessive and not supported by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... work of his client M/s. Atlanta Pharma Pvt. Ltd. and paid towards remuneration, out of pocket expenses etc in cash and self made cash vouchers were presented before the AO. The AR of the appellant has also placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements viz, Balbir Singh vs. CIT(ITAT Jaipur) reported in ITA No.121 of 2013 order dtd. 21.10.2015; M/s,Vijay Infrastructure Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Lucknow) in ITA No.254 of 2015 cross appeal nos. 12 13 of 2015 order dtd. 30.10.2015; ACIT vs. Ganpati Enterprises Ltd. in ITA No.6112 of 2012 order dtd. 15.02.2013. After considering the above stated facts of the case, it is observed that the supporting evidences filed before the AO are not conclusive as the appellant failed to submit the purpose and nature of expenditure etc incurred on the temporary hired staff, which could have helped in determining the approximate expenditure. The AO has also noticed that the appellant failed to submit the evidences such as bank statements, identity proof, copy of return with computation of the temporary hired staff and the AO has also pointed out some common anomaly features as discussed in Para 3, A to K , page 6 in the assessment order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 days from the date of conclusion of the hearing. In this regard, we place reliance on the decision of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of JSW Ltd in ITA Nos. 6264 6103/Mum/2018 dated 14.5.2020, wherein this issue has been addressed in detail allowing time to pronounce the order beyond 90 days from the date of conclusion of hearing by excluding the days for which the lockdown announced by the Government was in force. The relevant observations of this tribunal in the said binding precedent are 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, 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 limitationhas 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in the functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon 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 time- bound 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 analys is 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
