ITO WARD 3 (2), Thane V. M/S PLUS SUPPLIERS , Thane

ITA 1261/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6643 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BERA RAM
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Tax effect
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 133(6); 143(1); 13

Judgement Text

0 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 . 1261 / MUM/ 2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 ) ITO WARD 3(2), R. NO. 14, 6 TH FLOOR, B - WING, WAGLE IND USTRIAL ESTATE, THANE (W), PIN - 400 604 / VS. M/S PLUS SUPPLIERS, C/O - NATIONAL CLOTH STORES, STATION ROAD, JAMBLI NAKA, THANE(W) PIN - 400601 ./ ./ PAN NO. A AHFP 3583 A ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI BERARAM , DR / RESPONDENTBY : SHRI RAJESH JAIN , AR / DATE OF HEARING : 03.03.2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.07.2020 / O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) : THE PRESENT A PPE AL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMIS S IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2, THANE , IN SHORT LD. CIT(A) D ATED 11.12.2018 FOR AY 2009 - 10 . 2 I.T.A. NO. 1261 /MUM/201 9 M/S PLUS SUPPLIERS 2 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE , ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME, DECLARING TOTAL INC OME OF RS 1,09,882/ - ON 17.9.2009 AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS A FIRM, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SUPPLYING VARIOUS ITEMS ON TENDER BASIS. BASED ON THE INFORMA TION RECEIVED BY THE AO FROM THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT, THE ASSES S MENT FOR 2009 - 10 WAS RE - OPENED AND AO AFTER RECORDING NECESSARY REASONS/SATISFACTION , HE ISSUED NOTICE U/S148 OF THE ACT AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE RE - ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R .W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. WAS FINALIZED ON 15/1/2014 BY ASSESSING THE TO TAL INCOME OF RS 11,10,992/ - , AFTER MAKING THE DISALLOWANCES OF RS 9,93,815/ - , ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THE AO ALSO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT AND LEVIED THE PENALTY . 3 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE PRE FERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) AFT ER CONSIDERING THE CASE OF T HE PARTIES, ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4 . NOW BEFORE US, THE REVENUE HAS PREFE RRED THE APPEAL BY RAISING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS UNDER: - 3 I.T.A. NO. 1261 /MUM/201 9 M/S PLUS SUPPLIERS 1. ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY BY NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES FROM THE HAWALA PARTIES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 2. ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY BY NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE ALLEGED BOGUS PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION OF GE NUINENESS OF TRANSACTION DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF HIS CONCEALED INCOME DOES NOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE FROM PENALTY. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY BY NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS CLEAR INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO REDUCE THE TAXABLE INCOME BY CLAIMING PURCHASES FROM NON - GENUINE PARTIES. 4. ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY 4 I.T.A. NO. 1261 /MUM/201 9 M/S PLUS SUPPLIERS THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA (P) LTD VS CIT(358 ITR 593)(SC). 5. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED FOR THE ADDITIONS MADE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA I.E. SALE TAX DEPARTMENT. 6. IT IS HUMBLY REQUESTED THAT PRESENT APPEAL IS BEING FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CBDT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 3/2 018 DATED 11/07/2018 AMENDED VIDE LETTER DATED 20.08.2018 AS PER PER PARA 10(E) OF THE SAID CIRCULAR. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE VACATED & THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTE R OR D ELETE ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL 5 . AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TH E GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF COORDINATE BENCH OF HONBLE ITAT IN ITA NO. 5722/MUM/2018 FOR AY 2009 - 10 IN THE C ASE OF ITO VRS. M/S DEVJI J. PATEL AND PASSED THE ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 I.T.A. NO. 1261 /MUM/201 9 M/S PLUS SUPPLIERS 6 . ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 7 . WE HAVE HEARD COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PL ACED ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT THE IDENTICAL GROUND RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT IN ITA NO. 5722/MUM/2018 FOR AY 2009 - 10 IN THE CASE OF ITO VRS. M/S DEVJI J. PATEL , WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: - 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE PERUSAL OF CASE RECORDS, IT EMERGES THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 WHEREIN IT WAS SADDLED WITH ESTIMATED ADDITIONS OF RS.14.15 LACS BEING PEAK OF PURCHASES MADE FROM 3 SUSPICIOUS ENTITIES. THE PRIMARY REASON TO MAKE THE ADDITION WAS THE FACT THAT NOTICES ISSUED U/S 133(6) DID NOT ELICIT SATISFACTORY RESPONSE AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE T HE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY OF THE SUPPLIERS TO CONFIRM THE TRANSACTION. CONSEQUENTLY, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED IN QUANTUM ASSESSMENT 6 I.T.A. NO. 1261 /MUM/201 9 M/S PLUS SUPPLIERS ORDER AND THE ASSESSEE WAS SADDLED WITH IMPUGNED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) FOR RS.4.57 LACS VIDE PENALTY ORDER DATED 29/09/2015. UPON FURTHER APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY BY NOTING THAT THERE WAS ADHOC DISALLOWANCE AND CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY LD. AO. AGGRIEV ED, THE REVENUE IS UNDER FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. SINCE THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE QUESTION THE VERY MAINTAINABILITY OF REVENUES APPEAL, WE TAKE UP THE SAME AT THE THRESHOLD. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY UNDER DISPUTE IS RS.4.57 LACS AND THE SAME IS CERTAINLY BELOW THE THRESHOLD LIMIT OF RS.50 LACS AS PROVIDED IN LATEST LOW TAX EFFECT CIRCULAR NO.17/2019 DATED 08/08/2019 ISSUED BY CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES [CBDT]. 6. THE LD. DR HAS PLEADED THAT PENALTY SHOULD BE CONST RUED TO BE COVERED BY EXCEPTION CLAUSE 10(E) SINCE THE SAME WAS LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF QUANTUM ADDITIONS WHICH WAS BASED UPON RECEIPT OF INFORMATION FROM AN EXTERNAL AGENCY I.E. SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SAID SUBMISSIONS. IT IS SETTLED LEG AL POSITION THAT QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE 7 I.T.A. NO. 1261 /MUM/201 9 M/S PLUS SUPPLIERS INDEPENDENT AND DISTINCT PROCEEDINGS AND CONFIRMATION OF ADDITIONS MAY NOT BE THE SOLE GROUND FOR CONFIRMING THE PENALTY. EXTENDING THE SAME LOGIC, UNLESS SPECIFIC EXCEPTION IS PROVIDED IN TH E CIRCULAR WITH RESPECT TO PENALTY ALSO, IT COULD NOT BE CONSTRUED THAT THE PENALTY WAS TO BE TREATED AT PAR WITH QUANTUM ADDITIONS. THE CLAUSE 10(E) SPECIFICALLY APPLY ONLY TO ADDITIONS WHICH ARE BASED ON INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM EXTERNAL SOURCES. THE LE VY OF PENALTY, BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, COULD BE CONSTRUED AS ADDITION AS ENVISAGED BY CLAUSE 10(E). THEREFORE, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. DR COULD NOT BE HONOURED AND WE DECLINE TO ACCEPT THE SAME. 7. HAVING REACHED SUCH A CONCLUSION, THE APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN TERMS OF LATEST LOW TAX EFFECT CIRCULAR ISSUED BY CBDT. THE SAME WOULD OBVIATE THE NEED TO DELVE INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND ACCORDINGLY, WE REFRAIN FROM DOING SO. 8. HAVING SAID SO, A LIBERTY IS GIVEN TO REVENUE TO SEEK RECA LL OF THE APPEAL, IF AT A LATER STAGE, IT IS FOUND THAT THE MATTER IS COVERED BY ANY EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED IN ANY OF THE CIRCULAR OR IN CASE THE TAX EFFECT AS AGITATED BY REVENUE EXCEEDS THE PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMIT. 8 I.T.A. NO. 1261 /MUM/201 9 M/S PLUS SUPPLIERS 9. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL STANDS DISMI SSED. 8. T HEREFORE , RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT , WHICH IS APPLICABLE MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE DISMISS THE GROUND S RAISED BY THE REVENUE . 9 . IN THE NET RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STA NDS DISMIS SED . 10 . 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 I TA 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 GOVERNMEN T 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 ONE PROCEDURAL ISSUE AS WELL. WHILE HEARING OF THESE APPEALS WAS CONCLUDED ON 7TH JANUARY 20 20, THIS ORDER THEREON IS 9 I.T.A. NO. 1261 /MUM/201 9 M/S PLUS SUPPLIERS 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. (B) IN CASE WHERE THE ORDER IS NOT PRONOUNCED IMMEDIATELY ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING, THE BENCH SHALL GIVE A DATE FORPRONOUNCEMENT. (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 HEA RING 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 S UPPLIED BY US NOW) BE A DAY BEYOND A FURTHER PERIOD OF 30 DAYS AND DUE NOTICE 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 T HE 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 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 COUR T 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 10 I.T.A. NO. 1261 /MUM/201 9 M/S PLUS SUPPLIERS 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 B Y 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, 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 T HE 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, 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 T HE 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 11 I.T.A. NO. 1261 /MUM/201 9 M/S PLUS SUPPLIERS 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 NOTIFIC ATION DATED 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 APPROPRIATE, FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCEDURE. THE TERM FORCE MAJEUR E 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 ORDINARYPERIOD. 1 0 .IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED 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 EXCLUDING AT LEAST THE PERIO D 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 LA W 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 DISAST ER, 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)] , 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, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 15 TH APRIL 2020, HELD THAT DIRECTED WHILE CALCULATING THE TIME FOR DISPOSAL OF MATTERS MADE TIM E - 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 SUOMOTU BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND HONBLE SUPREME COU RT ALSO INDICATE THAT THIS PERIOD OF LOCKDOWN CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ORDINARY PERIOD DURING WHICH THE NORMAL TIME LIMITS ARE TO REMAIN IN FORCE. IN 12 I.T.A. NO. 1261 /MUM/201 9 M/S PLUS SUPPLIERS OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, EVEN WITHOUT THE WORDS ORDINARILY,INTHELIGHTOFTHEABOVEANALYSISOFTHELEGALPOSITION, TH EPERIODDURINGWHICH 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 DISCRETION OF THE BENCHES TO REFIX THE MATTERS FOR CLARIFICATIONS BECAUSE OF CONSIDERABLE T IME 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 EXERCISE WAS REQUIRED TO BE CARRIED OUT ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 11. TO SUM UP, T HE 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, BY PLACING THE DETAILS ON THE NOTICEBOARD. 11 . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORE SAID JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, WE PROCEED TO PRONOUNCE THIS ORDER BEYOND A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF CONCLUSION OF HEARING. 12. ORDER PRONOUNCED AS PER RULE 34(5) OF ITAT RULES AND BY PLACING THE PRONOUNCEME NT LIST IN THE NOTICE BOARD ON 27.07.2020 . SD/ - SD/ - (C. N. PRASAD ) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 27.07 .2020 SR.PS. DHANANJAY 13 I.T.A. NO. 1261 /MUM/201 9 M/S PLUS SUPPLIERS / 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, MUMB AI