PRAKASHCHANDRA HARILAL SHAH, Mumbai V. CIT (A)-25, Mumbai

ITA 1206/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6632 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UNAVEKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWIN KUMAR H SHAH
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 142(1); 274; 143(2); 13; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD , JM & SHRI S . RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM ./ I.T.A. NO . 1206 / MUM/ 2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 12 - 13 ) PRAKASH CHANDRA HARILAL SHAH, FLAT NO. 803, 8 TH FLOOR, B WING, ADINATH BLDG, NEELKANTH ENCLAVE OPP - SHREYAS CINEMA LBS ROAD, GHATKOPAR WEST, MUMBAI - 400 086 / VS. CIT(A) - 25 , 4 TH FLOOR TOWER NO. 6 RLY STATION COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, VASHI NAVI MUMBAI - 400 703 ./ ./ PAN NO. A A PPS 6547 M ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHWIN KUMAR H. SHAH , AR / RESPONDENTBY : SHRI UNAVEKAR , DR / DATE OF HEARING : 27.02 .2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.07.2020 / O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) : THE PRESENT A PPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMIS S IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 25 , MUMBAI, D ATED 17.01.2019 FOR AY 20 12 - 13 . 2 I.T.A. NO. 1206 /MUM/201 9 PRAKASH CHANDRA HARILAL SHAH, 2 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A N INDIVIDUAL AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.08.12 DISCLOSING THEREIN THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,30,510/ - . ON INFORMATION THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 1,82,620/ - AND SAME HAS NOT BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE O RIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE CASE WAS REOPENED U/S 147 AFTER ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE, ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 10.04.2017 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,30,510/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCR UTINY AND ACCORDINGLY, NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) WERE ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE, AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RELEVANT INFORMATION AS CALLED FOR. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE, AO PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R .W.S. 147 OF THE ACT THEREBY MAKING ADDITIONS, DETERM ININ G THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 2,30,510/ - . APART FROM THIS, PENALTY WAS ALSO LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE 3 I.T.A. NO. 1206 /MUM/201 9 PRAKASH CHANDRA HARILAL SHAH, SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 . NOW BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFE RRED APPEAL BY RAISING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS UNDER: - 1. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT COMMUNICATION VIZ. NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 12/06/2017, REMINDER LETTER DATED 27/06/2017 AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 13/07/2017 (COLLECTIVELY HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE SAID NOTICE AND COMMUNICATION') WAS SERVED TO AP PELLANT. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE SAID NOTICE AND COMMUNICATION IS NOT SERVED TO APPELLANT AND/OR NOT DELIVERED OR TRANSMITTED TO APPELLANT AT THE ADDRESS VIZ. FLAT NO.803, 8TH FLOOR, 'B' WING, ADINATH BUILDING, NEELKANTH ENCLAVE, OPP. SHREYA S CINEMA, L.B.S. ROAD, GHATKOPAR (WEST), MUMBAI - 400086 THOUGH THE SAID ADDRESS WAS AVAILABLE IN PAN DATABASE OF THE APPELLANT ON 22/05/2017 AND THE LAST INCOME TAX RETURN FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT ON 10/04/2017. CIT(A) HAS OVERLOOKED THAT APPELLANT HAS N OT FURNISHED IN WRITING ANY OTHER ADDRESS FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMMUNICATION TO THE INCOME - TAX AUTHORITY OR ANY PERSON AUTHORIZED BY SUCH AUTHORITY. 4 I.T.A. NO. 1206 /MUM/201 9 PRAKASH CHANDRA HARILAL SHAH, 2. THE SAID NOTICE AND COMMUNICATION REQUIRED TO BE SERVED U/S 282 FOR IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(B) IS NOT DELIVERED OR TRANSMITTED TO APPELLANT AT THE ADDRESS REFERRED TO IN SUB - RULE (2)(A)(I), (2)(A)(III), (2)(B)(II) AND (2)(B((IV) OF RULE 127 OF THE INCOME TAX (18TH AMENDMENT) RULES, 2015. 3. ADDRESS OF APPELLANT IN THE TITLE OF IMPUGN ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A ) IS DIFFERENT FROM ADDRESS OF APPELLANT IN CAUSE TITLE IN APPEAL FORM NO.35. PROOF OF ALLEGED SERVICE AND/OR DELIVERY OR TRANSMISSION OF THE SAID NOTICE AND COMMUNICATION IS NOT OFFERED TO THE APPELLANT FOR HIS COMMENT AND CRITICISM. THE OBSERVATION OF CI T(A) THAT APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO ATTEND AND HAD ALSO FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS CALLED FOR U/S 142(1) BY A.O. IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 10,000/ - LEVIED BY A.O. U/S 271(1)(B) OF TH E ACT. 5 . AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE AO AND ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED THE SA ME, HENCE, PENALTY LEVIED. IN THE 5 I.T.A. NO. 1206 /MUM/201 9 PRAKASH CHANDRA HARILAL SHAH, ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT, AO HIMSELF ACKNOWLEDGES THAT NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND IN RESPONSE, ASSESSEE HAS MADE HIS SUBMISSION, THROUGH MAIL, WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT ASSESSEE HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND COMPLETED WITH NOTICES ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(B) IS NOT PROPER. 6 . ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 7 . CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, WE NOTICE THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT, AO HIMSELF ACKNOWLEDGES THAT NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND IN RESPONSE, ASSESSEE H AS MADE HIS SUBMISSION, THROUGH MAIL, WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(B) IS NOT PROPER AND JUSTIFIABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 6 I.T.A. NO. 1206 /MUM/201 9 PRAKASH CHANDRA HARILAL SHAH, 8 . IN THE NET RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS ALLOWED . 9. 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 CON CLUSION 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 E PROCEDURAL ISSUE AS WELL. WHILE HEARING OF THESE APPEALS WAS CONCLUDED ON 7TH JANUARY 2020, THIS ORDER THEREON IS BEING PRONOUNCED TODAY ON 14 TH 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 PRONOUNCEMENT MAY BE IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MANNERS: (A) THE BENCH MAY PRONOUNCE THE ORDER IMMEDIATELY UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THEHEARING. 7 I.T.A. NO. 1206 /MUM/201 9 PRAKASH CHANDRA HARILAL SHAH, (B) IN CASE WHERE THE ORDER IS NOT PRONOUNCED IMMEDIATELY ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING, THE BENCH SHALL GIVE A DATE FOR PRONOUNCEMENT. (C ) IN A CASE WHERE NO DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT IS GIVEN BY THE BENCH, EVERY ENDEAVOUR SHALL BE MADE BY THE BENCH TO PRONOUNCE THE ORDER WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE HEARING OF THE CASE WAS CONCLUDED BUT, WHERE IT IS NOT PRACTICABLE SO TO DO ON THE GROUND OF EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE BENCH SHALL FIX A FUTURE DAY FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER, AND SUCH DATE SHALL NOT ORDINARILY (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED BY US NOW) BE A DAY BEYOND A FURTHER PERIOD OF 30 DAYS AND DUE NOTI CE OF THE DAY SO FIXED SHALL BE GIVEN ON THE NOTICEBOARD. 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 T HE EXPRESSION ORDINARILY HAS BEEN USED IN THE SAID RULE ITSELF. THIS RULE WAS INSERTED AS A RESULT OF DIRECTIONS OF HONBLE 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 D IRECTIONS 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 TR IBUNAL. 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 JUD GMENT . 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 D AYS, WAS NECESSITATED BY ANY EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. 9. LET US IN THIS LIGHT REVERT TO THE PREVAILING SITUATION IN THE 8 I.T.A. NO. 1206 /MUM/201 9 PRAKASH CHANDRA HARILAL SHAH, 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 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 ACCOU NT 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 ALS O. IN ANY CASE, 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, THAT HONBLE 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 . HONBLE 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 OVER THE WORLD. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAS, VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 19 TH FEBRUARY 2020, TAKEN THE STAND THAT, THE CORONAVIRUS SHO ULD 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 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 DISASTER UNDER THE NATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT, 2005, AND ALSO IN THE L IGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS ABOVE, THE PERIOD DURING WHICH LOCKDOWN WAS IN FORCE CAN BE ANYTHING BUT 9 I.T.A. NO. 1206 /MUM/201 9 PRAKASH CHANDRA HARILAL SHAH, AN ORDINARYPERIOD. 1 0.IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT RATHER THAN TAKING A PEDANTIC VIEW OF THE RULE REQUIRING PR ONOUNCEMENT 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 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 REQ UIRED 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 UNPRECEDEN TED DISRUPTION IN THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR JUSTICE DELIVERY SYSTEM. UNDOUBTEDLY, 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 THE N IN THE PRESENT SITUATION HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ITSELF HAS, VIDE 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 20 20 CONTINUES TO OPERATE SHALL BE ADDED AND TIME SHALL STAND EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY . THE EXTRAORDINARY STEPS TAKEN SUOMOTU BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND HONBLE SUPREME COURT ALSO INDICATE THAT THIS PERIOD OF LOCKDOWN CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ORDI NARY 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 WHICH 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 THERE CANNOT BE ANY, BAR ON THE DISCRETIO N OF THE BENCHES TO REFIX THE MATTERS FOR CLARIFICATIONS BECAUSE OF CONSIDERABLE TIME LAG BETWEEN 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 EXE RCISE WAS REQUIRED TO BE CARRIED OUT ON THE 10 I.T.A. NO. 1206 /MUM/201 9 PRAKASH CHANDRA HARILAL SHAH, FACTS OF THIS CASE. 11. TO SUM UP, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED, AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED UNDER RULE 34(4) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1962, B Y PLACING THE DETAILS ON THE NOTICE BOARD. 10 . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, WE PROCEED TO PRONOUNCE THIS ORDER BEYOND A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF CONCLUSION OF HEARING. 11 ORDER PRONOUNCED AS PER RULE 34(5) OF ITAT RULES AND BY PLACING THE PRONOUNCEMENT LIS T IN THE NOTICE BOARD ON 15.07.2020 . SD/ - SD/ - (C. N. PRASAD ) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 15.07 .2020 SR.PS. DHANANJAY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, . / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI