9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned CIT(A)) erred in confirming the interest disallowance of Rs. 6,36,555/- disregarding the fact that the fact that the loan was used for the purpose of horse-trading and horse racing business. (ii) On the facts and circumstances, your appellant states that the alleged expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning income from horse trading and horse racing business and therefore, the same ought to have been allowed. (iii) On the facts and circumstances your appellant prays that the alleged claim on account of various expenses may be allowed. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or delete any of the above grounds of appeal." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejecting the claim of the assessee on the basis of non-receipt of profit is not liable to be sustainable, therefore, we set aside the finding of the CIT(A) and allowed the claim of the assessee. Reasons for delay in pronouncement of order 6.1 Before parting, we would like to enumerate the circumstances which have led to delay in pronouncement of this order. The hearing of the matter was concluded on 07/02/2020 and in terms of Rule 34(5) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, the matter was required to be pronounced within a total period of 90 days. As per sub-clause (c) of Rule 34(5), every endeavor was to be made to pronounce the order within 60 days after conclusion of hearing. However, where it is not practicable to do so on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .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 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 ov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 (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 accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
