9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that the assessee has not claimed any exempted income during the year under consideration. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record of the case. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has earned dividend income and calculated the same as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 8D of the I.T.Rules and made disallowance of Rs. 10,81,553/-. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has not incurred any expenditure for earning the dividend income and, accordingly, has not claimed any exempt income. He has further submitted that there is no change in the investment portfo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration of the rival submissions, we find that the Assessing Officer has made a disallowance by noting the fact that the assessee has made average investment as on 31.3.2009 at Rs. 26,00,000/- and as on 31.3.2010 at Rs. 4,50,60,000/- and calculated as per formula under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8D at Rs. 10,81,553/- considering the interest expenses. Thus, it is clear from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer has not expressed any satisfaction that the assessee has incurred certain expenditure for earning the dividend income in question. There is no quarrel that section 14A postulates the disallowance of expenditure incurred for earning the exempt income which is not forming part of the total income of the assessee. It is also cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onouncement. In a case where no date of pronouncement is given by the Bench, every endeavour shall be made by the Bench to pronounce the order within 60 days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do on the ground of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the case, the Bench shall fix a future day for pronouncement of the order, and such date shall not ordinarily be a day beyond a further period of 30 days and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given on the notice board. As such, "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 expressi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JSW Limited & ors (ITA No.6264/Mum/18 dated 14.5.2020, wherein, it was observed as under: " 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, 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 no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n'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. " 10. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
