9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 720X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fit and appropriate in the interest of justice and fair play to remand this ground also to the file of the ld. AO as the decision in this case would be depending on the outcome of the decision taken by the ld. AO under normal provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is set aside to the file of the ld. AO for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Order being pronounced after ninety (90) days of hearing - COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the extraordinary situation in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown, the period of lockdown days need to be excluded. See case of DCIT vs. JSW Limited [ 2020 (5) TMI 359 - ITAT MUMBAI ] X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd. We find that the assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of Mahindra range of vehicles, agricultural tractors, implements, industrial engines, automotive pressings, industrial process control instruments, mechanical cleaning rakes, separation equipments, spares etc., In addition, it is also engaged in the business of dealing in property development / construction activities and transport solutions. The assessee carries out its business mainly through automotive division and tractor division having offices and factories at various places in the Country. The ld. AO had observed that assessee had made provision for warranty for F.Y.2002-03 as under:- Division Amount (Rs.in lakhs) Automotive Division ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the file of the ld. AO for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. 4. It is pertinent to mention here that this order is pronounced after a period of 90 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 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8223;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". 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 clarifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... excluding at least the period during which the lockdown was in force. We must factor ground realities in mind while interpreting the time limit for the pronouncement of the order. Law is not brooding omnipotence in the sky. It is a pragmatic tool of the social order. The tenets of law being enacted on the basis of pragmatism, and that is how the law is required to interpreted. The interpretation so assigned by us is not only in consonance with the letter 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 (Bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
