9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 'the Act') for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee company engaged in the business of consultancy of insurances and risk management filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 29.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs. 36,39,62,800/- which was scrutinized and ultimately completed under section 143(3) of the Act, with an addition of Rs. 17,72,201/- on account of disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The same was, in turn, restricted to Rs. 12,61,787/- by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us. 3. We have heard the parties and we have perused the relevant materials available on record. It appears that during the course of assessment proceeding it was found that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... way of interest and 0.5% of average investments respectively. The direct expenses has been worked out at Rs. 1,685/- on account of Demat charges. The expenditure incurred by way of interest is to the tune of Rs. 5,15,414/- invoking Rule 8D(2)(ii) and 0.5% of the average investment under Rule 8D(2)(iii) has been computed at Rs. 12,61,787/- which was under challenge before us. As it appears from the records that the Ld. CIT(A) while confirming this particular addition he has observed that upon due consideration of the proceeding and the judicial pronouncements the Ld. AO made the addition of Rs. 12,61,787/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii). The total quantum of exempt income earned by the assessee was much higher than that of the disallowance made by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench in the case of DCIT vs. JSW Ltd. (ITA Nos. 6264 & 6103/Mum/2018) pronounced on 14.05.2020 in the light of which it is well within the time limit permitted under Rule 34(5) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 in view of the following observations made therein: "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 8th January 2020, this order thereon is being pronounced today on the day of 14th 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 prono ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal area where the dispute lies or where the cause of action arises shall be extended for a period of 15days after the lifting of lockdown". Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in an order dated 15th April 2020, has, besides extending the validity of all interim orders, has also observed that, "It is also clarified that while calculating 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", and also observed that "arrangement continued by an order dated 26th March 2020 till 30th April 2020 shall continue further till 15th June 2020". It has been an unprecedented situation not only in India but all over the worl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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'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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
