Shri Nishant Vithal Savaliya, Surat V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Rajkot

ITA 112/RJT/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0961 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S BHALLA
• Keywords: Salary income; Competent authority
• Section: 143(3); 143(2); 13; 263

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITANO.112/RJT/2019 / ASSTT. YEAR:2014-2015 NISHANTVITHALSAVALIYA, BLOCK NO.2, AVADH APARTMENT, KRUSHNA NAGAR MAIN ROAD, AMBAJIKADAVA PLOT, RAJKOT. PAN: CDWPS1862F VS. PR.C.I.T.-3, RAJKOT. ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPON D ENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI CHETAN AGRAWAL , A.R REVENUEBY : SHRI P.S. BHALLA , SR .D R / DATE OF HEARING : 19/02/2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01/06/2020 +,/ O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, RAJKOT DATED 11/03/2019(IN SHORT PCIT)ARISING IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HERE-IN-A FTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015. ITA NO.112/RJT/2019 ASSTT. YEAR2014-15 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: 1. THE LD.PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN L AW & IN FACTS IN TREATING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE ERRONEOUS. (I) THE LD.PR.CIT HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FAC T THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WAS INITIATED UNDER THE LIMITED SCRUTIN Y VERIFY SOME SPECIFIC INFORMATION REFLECTED IN AIR I.E LARGE INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY AS COMPARED TO TOTAL INCOME AS COMMUNICATED VIDE NOTICE U/S.143(2 ) DATED 09-05-2016 AND A.O HAS VERIFIED ALL DETAILS COVERED UNDER LIMITED SCRUTINY. 2. THE LD.PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERR ED IN LAW & FACTS IN TREATING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. (I) ALL THE DETAILS OF ITEMS REFLECTED IN ORDER U/S.263 HAVE BEEN DULY SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSEE A ND VERIFIED BY THE A.O. 2. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE L D.PR.CIT U/S.263 OF THE ACT, ERRED IN HOLDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S143( 3) OF THE ACT AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DRAWING HIS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD SALARY AND FROM THE OPERATION OF AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WA S SELECTED UNDER LIMITED SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICES U/S.143( 2)/142(1) WERE ISSUED UPON THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY THE AO VIDE ORDER DATED 10/10/2016 ACCEPTING INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSE E IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LD.PR.CIT U/S263 OF THE ACT OBSER VED CERTAIN DEFECTS IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO. SOME OF THE DEFECTS AS OBSERVED BY THE LD.PR.CIT ARE LISTED AS UNDER: 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THE INVESTMENT IN THE PR OPERTY AMOUNTING TO RS.89,20,750/- IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31/03/201 4 AND 31/03/2015. 2. THERE WERE MANY JOINT BANK ACCOUNTS HELD BY THE ASS ESSEE BUT MOST OF THEM WERE NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET PREPAR ED AS ON 31/03/2014 AND 31/03/2015. ITA NO.112/RJT/2019 ASSTT. YEAR2014-15 3 3. THERE WERE CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT IN THE JOINT BANK ACCOUNTS SUCH AS WITHDRAWAL OF RS.8 LAKHS TWO TIMES DATED 05/07/2 013 AND 06/07/2013, PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION OF FEES AMOU NTING TO RS.4,37,000/- AND RS.89,000/- WHICH WERE NOT SHOWN IN THE CASH BO OK. 4. THERE WAS NO BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE D URING THE YEAR BUT HE HAS SHOWN CREDITORS OF RS.33,00,000/- IN HIS BALANC E SHEET AS ON 31/03/2014. 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS BALANCE SHEET TWO TIMES VIDE LETTER DATED 18/05/2016 AND 15/07/2016 BUT THERE WAS HUGE DISCRE PANCIES WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN ITEMS OF THE BALANCE SHEET FILED ON TWO DIFFERENT DATES FOR THE SAME FINANCIAL YEAR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE LD.PR.CIT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WITHOUT PROPER VERIFICATION AND APPLYING THE MIND ON THE FACTS AS NARRATED ABOVE. A CCORDINGLY, HE PROPOSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE BY ISSUING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 02/02/2019. 4. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED UNDER LIMITED SCRUTINY FOR THE VERIFICATION OF THE INVESTMENT MADE IN LAND AMOUNTING RS.89,28,750/- . THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S143 O F THE ACT WAS LIMITED TO THE INVESTMENT IN LAND ONLY. THUS, THE AO WAS NOT TO VE RIFY ANYTHING DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OTHER THAN THE INVESTMENT SH OWN IN THE PROPERTY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE CONTENTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO CANNOT BE HELD AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 4.1 HOWEVER, THE LD.PR.CIT DISREGARDED THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THE ORDER OF THE AO AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF ITA NO.112/RJT/2019 ASSTT. YEAR2014-15 4 REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF NON-VERIFICATION OF THE ITEMS AS DISCUSSED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ''LD.CIT (A)'' THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD.A.R. BEFORE US FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING FROM PAGES 1 TO 21 AND CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS A LIMITED SCRUTINY CARRI ED OUT BY THE AO AS EVIDENT FROM THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WHICH PLACED ON PAGE 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 5.1 THE CASE FOR THE LIMITED SCRUTINY WAS SELECTE D ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO RS.89,20,750/- WH ICH WAS DULY SHOWN IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT AS EVIDENT FROM THE BALANCE SHE ET OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 5.2 THE LD.A.R ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS INQUIR Y RAISED BY THE AO IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S142(1) OF THE ACT REGARDING THE IN VESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY FOR RS.89,20,750/- WHICH WAS DULY ANSWERED BY THE ASSES SEE. 5.3 THE LD.AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION DREW OUR ATTENTION ON PAGE 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK SHOWING THE INQUIRY RAISED BY THE AO . SIMILARLY, THE REPLY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS PLACED AT PAGE 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE LD.A.R CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO CANNOT BE HELD AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF NON-VERIFICATION OF THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS ALLEGED BY THE LD.PR.CIT U/S263 OF THE ACT. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD.D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.112/RJT/2019 ASSTT. YEAR2014-15 5 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD BEFORE US.ADMITTEDLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY. THIS FACT WAS ALSO ADMITTED BY THE LD.P R.CIT IN HIS ORDER DATED 17/03/2009 BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE, DERIVING INCOME FROM SALARY AND AGRI CULTURE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15 ON 18/11/2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,66,350/- AND AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.1,00,000/-. THE CASE WAS S ELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY UNDER CASS FOR THE REASON OF LARGE INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY (AI R) AS COMPARED TO TOTAL INCOME FROM THE ABOVE, THERE REMAINS NO AMBIGUITY FOR THE SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICH WAS LIMITED TO THE EXTENT OF THE INVESTMENT I N THE PROPERTY. THUS THERE WAS NO OCCASION/POWER AVAILABLE WITH THE AO TO EXTEND T HE SCOPE OF HIS SCRUTINY AS PER THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.20/2015 DATED 29/12/2015 IS SUED BY THE CBDT. 8. THE LD. DR BEFORE US HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD JUSTIFYING THAT THE LIMITED SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS CONVERTED AS REGU LAR ASSESSMENT AFTER OBTAINING APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. AC CORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO FRAMED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT AT THE MOST IF HELD AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE C AN BE MADE ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. IN OTHER WORDS THE ORDER OF THE AO CANNOT BE HELD AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE OTHER THAN THE INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. ACCORDINGLY, THE ALLEGA TION FRAMED BY THE LD.PR.CIT IN HOLDING ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE OTHER THAN THE INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY ARE N OT MAINTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISREGARD THEM. 8.1 REGARDING INVESTMENT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO RS.89,27950/- WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE FU LL DISCLOSURE IN HIS BALANCE SHEET PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. SIMILARLY THE AO HA S ALSO MADE INQUIRY DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ABOUT SUCH INVESTMENT. THESE FACTS ARE VERIFIABLE FROM THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF THE PA PER BOOK WHICH HAS ALREADY ITA NO.112/RJT/2019 ASSTT. YEAR2014-15 6 REFERRED IN THE ARGUMENT OF LD.A.R FOR THE ASSESSEE . ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE AO U/S.143(3) OF THE A CT AFTER CONDUCTING NECESSARY INQUIRIES AND APPLICATION OF MIND. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE HELD AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTE REST OF THE REVENUE AS ALLEGED BY THE LD. PR. CIT. ACCORDINGLY, WE QUASH THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE LD.PR.CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT. HENCE THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED. 9. BEFORE WE PART WITH THE ISSUE/APPEAL AS DISCUSSE D ABOVE, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE CLAUSE OF RULE 34 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES 1963 REQUIRES THE BENCH TO MAKE ENDEAVOUR TO PRONOUNCE THE ORDER WITH IN 60 DAYS FROM THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. HOWEVER THE PERIOD OF 60 DAYS CAN BE EXTENDED UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES BUT THE SAME SHOULD NOT O RDINARILY BE FURTHER EXTENDED BEYOND ANOTHER 30 DAYS. IN SIMPLE WORDS THE TOTAL T IME AVAILABLE TO THE BENCH IS OF 90 DAYS UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. HOWEVER, DURING THE PREVAILING CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE ENTIRE WORLD IS FACING THE UNPRECEDENTED CHALLENGE OF COVID 2019 OUTBREAK, RES ULTING THE LOCKDOWN IN THE COUNTRY, THE ORDERS THOUGH SUBSTANTIALLY PREPARED B UT COULD NOT BE PRONOUNCED FOR THE UNAVOIDABLE REASONS WITHIN THE MAXIMUM PERIOD O F 90 DAYS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE MUMBAI TRIBU NAL IN THE CASE OF JSW LIMITED VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN ITA NO. 6103/MUM/2018 VIDE ORDER DATED 14-5-2020 EXTENDED THE TIME FOR PRONOUNCING THE ORDER WITHIN 90 DAYS OF TIME BY OBS ERVING AS UNDER: 9. LET US IN THIS LIGHT REVERT TO THE PREVAILING SI TUATION IN THE COUNTRY. ON 24TH MARCH, 2020, HONBLE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA TOOK THE BOLD STEP OF IMPOSING A NATIONWIDE LOCKDOWN, FOR 21 DAYS, TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF COV ID 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 APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL AT MUMBAI WAS SEVERELY RESTRICTED ON ACCOUNT OF LOCKDOWN BY THE M AHARASHTRA 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 GR AVE, THERE WAS NOT MUCH OF A RELAXATION IN SUBSEQUENT LOCKDOWNS ALSO. IN ANY CAS E, THERE WAS UNPRECEDENTED DISRUPTION OF JUDICIAL WOK ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT HAS BEEN SUCH AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION, CAUSING DISRUPTION IN THE FUNCTIONING OF JUDICIAL MACHINERY, ITA NO.112/RJT/2019 ASSTT. YEAR2014-15 7 THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, IN AN UNPRECED ENTED 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 WH ICH 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 . HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN AN ORDER DATED 15TH APRIL 2020, HAS, BESI DES 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 COU RT, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH 2020 CONTINUES TO OPERATE SH ALL 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 SH ALL CONTINUE FURTHER TILL 15TH JUNE 2020 . IT HAS BEEN AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION NOT ONLY IN INDIA BUT ALL OVER THE WORLD. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAS, VIDE NOTIFICATION D ATED 19 TH 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 APPROPRI ATE, FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCEDURE. THE TERM FORCE MAJEURE HAS BEEN DEFINED IN BLACKS 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 DI SASTER 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 O F THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT RATHER THAN TAKING A PEDANTIC VIEW OF THE RULE REQUIRING PRONOU NCEMENT OF ORDERS WITHIN 90 DAYS, DISREGARDING THE IMPORTANT FACT THAT THE ENTIRE COU NTRY WAS IN LOCKDOWN, WE SHOULD COMPUTE THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS BY EXCLUDING AT LEAST THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE LOCKDOWN WAS IN FORCE. WE MUST FACTOR GROUND REALIT IES 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. TH E TENETS OF LAW BEING ENACTED ON THE BASIS OF PRAGMATISM, AND THAT IS HOW THE LAW IS REQ UIRED TO INTERPRETED. THE INTERPRETATION SO ASSIGNED BY US IS NOT ONLY IN CON SONANCE WITH THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF RULE 34(5) BUT IS ALSO A PRAGMATIC APPROACH AT A TI ME WHEN A DISASTER, NOTIFIED UNDER THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT 2005, IS CAUSING UNPREC EDENTED DISRUPTION IN THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR JUSTICE DELIVERY SYSTEM. UNDOUBT EDLY, IN THE CASE OF OTTERS CLUB VS DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (BOM)] , HONBLE 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 HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ITSELF HAS, VID E JUDGMENT DATED 15 TH 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 SHALL STAND EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY . THE EXTRAORDINARY STEPS TAKEN SUOMOTUBY HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT AND HONBLE SUPREME COURT ALSO INDICATE THAT THIS PERIOD OF LOC KDOWN CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ORDINARY PERIOD DURING WHICH THE NORMAL TIME LIMITS ARE TO REMAIN IN FORCE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, EVEN WITHOUT THE WORDS ORDINARILY , IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL POSITION, THE PERIOD DURING W HICH LOCKOUT WAS IN FORCE IS TO EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TIME LIMITS SET OUT IN RULE 34(5) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. VIEWED THUS, THE EXCEPTION, TO 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, INHERENT IN RULE 34(5)(C), WITH RESPECT TO THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS WITHIN NINETY DAYS, CLEARLY COMES INTO PLAY IN THE PRESENT CASE. OF COURSE, THERE IS NO, AND ITA NO.112/RJT/2019 ASSTT. YEAR2014-15 8 THERE CANNOT BE ANY, BAR ON THE DISCRETION OF THE B ENCHES TO REFIX THE MATTERS FOR CLARIFICATIONS BECAUSE OF CONSIDERABLE TIME LAG BET WEEN THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE HEARING IS CONCLUDED AND THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE ORDER THEREON IS BEING FINALIZED, BUT THEN, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NO SUCH EXERCISE WAS REQUIRED TO BE CARRIED OUT ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 11. TO SUM UP, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D, AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED UNDER RULE 3 4(4) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1962, BY PLACING THE DETAILS ON TH E NOTICE BOARD. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE EXPRESS TO PRONOUNCE THE ORDER BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS. ACCORDINGLY, WE PROCEED TO PRONOUNCE THE O RDER AS ON DATE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 01/06/2020 AT AHM EDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 01/06/2020 MANISH +, - ./01 2+1/ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : +, 3 4 / BY ORDER, 5/4 67 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! / CONCERNED CIT 4. ! ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. $%& '' , / DR, ITAT, 6. &)* + / GUARD FILE.