9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the appellant has not incurred any expenditure for earning such income. 3. Your appellants craves, leave to add, alter and / or amend the above grounds of appeal." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 17.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 1,31,23,610/- relevant to the assessment year 2013-14. The return was processed as such under Sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS. The notice under Sec.143(2) and 143(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. On verification, it was found that the assessee has earned dividend income which has been claimed exempt income. The assessee earned a sum of Rs. 2,78,205/- from Long Term Capital Gain from DWS and Sundaram FMP. The assessing officer issued notice to the assessee in view of provision under Sec. 14A r.w.Rule 8D and after reply of the assessee the assessing officer assessed expenditure to earn exempt income in sum of Rs. 1,95,953/-. And the total income of the assessee assessed in sum of Rs. 1,35,83,700/-. 3. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee carried the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding is recorded that the assessee had interest-free funds of its own which had been generated in the course of the year commencing from 1-4-1999. Apart from that in terms of the balance sheet there was a further availability of Rs. 398.19 crores including Rs. 180 crores of share capital. In this context, in our opinion, the finding of fact recorded by CIT (Appeals) and ITAT as to availability of interest-free funds really cannot be faulted. 10. If there be interest-free funds available to an assessee sufficient to meet its investments and at the same time the assessee had raised a loan it can be presumed that the investments were from the interest-free funds available. In our opinion the Supreme Court in East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.'s case (supra) had the occasion to consider the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Woolcombers of India Ltd.'s case (supra) where a similar issue had arisen. Before the Supreme Court it was argued that it should have been presumed that in essence and true character the taxes were paid out of the profits of the relevant year and not out of the overdraft account for the running of the business and in these circumstances the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain amounts in Reliance Gas Ltd. and Reliance Strategic Investments Ltd. It was the case of the Assessee that they themselves were in the business of generation of power and they had earned regular business income therefrom. The investments made by the Assessee in M/s Reliance Gas Ltd. And M/s Reliance Strategic Investments Ltd. were done out of their own funds and were in the regular course of business and therefore no part of the interest could be disallowed. It was also pointed out that the Assessee had borrowed Rs. 43.62 crores by way of issue of debentures and the said amount was utilised as capital expenditure and inter-corporate deposit. It was the Assessee's submission that no part of the interest bearing funds (viz. Issue of debentures) had gone into making investments in the said two companies. It was pointed out that the income from the operations of the Assessee was Rs. 313.53 crores and with the availability of other interest free funds with the Assessee the amount available for investments out of its own funds were to the tune of Rs. 398.19 crores. In view thereof, it was submitted that from the analysis of the balance-sheet, the Assessee had enough interest free ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee funds generated or available with the company if the interest-free funds were sufficient to meet the investment. In this case this presumption is established considering the finding of fact both by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal." (Emphasis supplied) 5. We find that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra). The finding of fact given by the ITAT in the present case is that the Assessee's own funds and other non-interest bearing funds were more than the investment in the tax-free securities. This factual position is not one that is disputed. In the present case, undisputedly the Assessee's capital, profit reserves, surplus and current account deposits were higher than the investment in the tax-free securities. In view of this factual position, as per the judgment of this Court in the case of Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. (supra), it would have to be presumed that the investment made by the Assessee would be out of the interest-free funds available with the Assessee. We therefore, are unable to agree with the submission of Mr Suresh Kumar tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the ground of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, the bench could fix a future date of pronouncement of the order which shall not ordinarily be a day beyond a further period of 30 days. Thus, a period of 60 days has been provided under the extant rule for pronouncement of the order. This period could be extended by the bench on the ground of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances. However, the extended period shall not ordinarily exceed a period of 30 days. 6.2 Although the order was well drafted as well as approved before the expiry of 90 days, however, unfortunately, on 24/03/2020, a nationwide lockdown was imposed by the Government of India in view of adverse circum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e board. 8. Quite clearly, "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 expression "ordinarily" has been 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 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recedented situation not only in India but all over the world. Government of India has, vide notification 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, we are of the considered view that rather than taking a pedantic view of the rule requiring pronouncement of orders within 90 days, disregarding the important fact that the entire country was in lockdown, we should compute the period of 90 days by excludingat least the period during which the lockdown was in force. We must factor ground rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
