9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at assessee has deducted TDS on the above said interest and remitted the same. Since the assessee has paid the interest after deducting due tax and also assessee has submitted the identity creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction before assessing officer. This fact was appreciated by the learned CIT(A) and also before us, no new document or any material brought on record by any authority in contrary to the findings of learned CIT(A). Therefore, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. - I.T.A. No. 4848/Mum/2017 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2020 - Shri Pawan Singh, JM And Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, AM For the Appellant : Mrs Samatha Mullamudi, DR For the Respondent : Vijay Mehta, AR ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANTMEMBER): The present appeals has been filed by the revenue against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai dated 05.04.2017 for AY 2012-13. 2. The brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income on 23.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. NIL. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the notices under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessing officer and other 51 parties did not respond.Accordingly he brought on record the list of 51 parties in the assessment order and disallowed the principal loan outstanding to the extent of ₹ 3,72, 42, 936/ and interest to the extent of ₹ 1,44,79,733/ . 6. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and Assessee filed elaborate submission before the learned CIT(A). 7. With regard to loan from M/s Samir Enterprises, Ld CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, accepted the evidences submitted before him and he observed in his order that what it transpires from the assessment order that the AO has solely relied upon the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act of M/s Samir Enterprises and did not carry out any worthwhile independent enquiry in the matter. He observed that assessing officer totally ignored the documentary evidences submitted by the assessee. The AO in its assessment order admitted existence of these details. Further he observed that assessing officer has not pointed out any defect in the above mentioned documentary evidences submitted during the assessment proceedings. Without pointin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment proceedings of M/s Samir Enterprises wherein, the jurisdictional AO confirmed that M/s Samir Enterprises does not conduct any business activity and was merely passing accommodation entries. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in taking the view that AO did not make any worthwhile enquiry to verify the credit worthiness of M/s Samir Enterprises whereas assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 in the case M/s Samir Enterprises declaring it as a bogus entity was passed only after making investigation by an Assessing Officer of the Department. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering the fact that AO had issued notices u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act 1961 to lenders and reply was received from the lenders and therefore, identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders were never proved. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in accepting that assessee has discharged it onus by merely f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ily relying on the assessment order of M/s Samir Enterprises. He brought to our notice detailed submissions made by the assessee before the learned CIT(A).With regard to addition of loan from M/s Samir Enterprises and also the loans taken from various parties and respective interest payments to them,he submitted that assessee has complied with all the procedure and maintained the proper documents in support of proving the identity, credibility and genuineness of the transaction. It was submitted before assessing officer during assessment proceedings and he had not considered while completing the assessment. He submitted that assessee has submitted all relevant documentation before the learned CIT(A) and learned CIT(A) has considered those information and passed the appropriate order. 13. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, with regard to alleged bogus loan from M/s Samir Enterprises, we notice that assessing officer has made the addition considering the assessment order of M/s Samir Enterprises in which the respective assessing officer has disallowed the bogus purchases. He observed that M/s Samir Enterprises was not doing any business and just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s submitted the identity creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction before assessing officer. This fact was appreciated by the learned CIT(A) and also before us, no new document or any material brought on record by any authority in contrary to the findings of learned CIT(A). Therefore, we are inclined to accept the findings of the learned CIT(A). Considering the overall situation in this case, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds raised by the revenue. 16. In the net result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 17. 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. Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate 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 days. The question then arises whether the passing of this order, beyond ninety days, was necessitated by any extraordinary circumstances. 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 not much of a relaxation in subsequent lockdowns also. In any case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te the period of 90 days by 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 (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 time- bound by this Court, the period for which the order dated 26th March 2020 continues to operate shall be added and time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
