HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED , MUMBAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1861/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8413 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH H , MUMBAI , . !'# ,&' &( BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . 1861 / / 2018 (. . 2011-12 ) ITA NO.1861/MUM/2018 (A.Y.2011-12) M/S. HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD., UNIT NO.152, BLOCK A, SECTOR -3, MILLENIUM BUSINESS PARK, TTC INDUSTRIAL AREA, MAHAPE, NAVI MUMBAI 400 701 PAN: AABCA3203F ...... - / APPELLANT VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10(1)(1) MUMBAI. ..... ./ / RESPONDENT -0/ APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJAN VORA ./ 0/ RESPONDENT BY : MS. MAMTA BANSAL 1/ / DATE OF HEARING : 30/01/2020 1/ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/06/2020 &/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAIL ING THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-17, MUMBAI (IN SHORT CIT(A)) D ATED 27/12 /2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, ORIGINATING FROM PROCEEDINGS UNDER SE CTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2 ITA NO.1861/MUM/2018(A.Y.2011-12) 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RE CORDS ARE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS AND IT ENABLED SERVICE S. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 30/11/2011 DECL ARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.31,03,63,786/- UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF TH E ACT AND BOOK PROFIT OF RS.143,62,22,901/- UNDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115J B OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALLEGEDLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80JJAA OF THE ACT D URING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27/03/2015 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, WITHOUT COMMENTING ON ASSESSEES CLAIM MAD E DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE FILED RECTIFICATION PETITION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 80JJAA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED ASSESSEES CLAIM NOT MADE IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME/REVISED RETURN OF INCOME IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION RENDERED BY HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT, REPORTED AS 284 ITR 323(SC). AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DATED 20/08/2015 PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE F ILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DISMISSED ASSESSEES APPEAL PRI MARILY ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 154 OF THE ACT FOR CLA IMING DEDUCTION U/S 80 JJAA IS NOT APPROPRIATE REMEDY. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) FOR CLAIMING SUCH DEDUC TION. AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE IS IN A PPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. SHRI RAJAN VORA, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS DENIAL OF BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80JJAA OF THE ACT. THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80JJAA WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE BY CIT (A) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 VIDE ORDER DATED 26/09/2019. EVEN, IN THE SUBSEQUEN T ASSESSMENT YEARS THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80JJAA OF THE ACT. THUS, THE ASSESSEES ELIGIBILITY TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER AFORESAID SECTION IN THE IMPUGNED A SSESSMENT YEAR IS NOT IN QUESTION. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE WHILE FILING RETURN OF INC OME FOR AY 2011-12 FAILED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80JJAA OF THE ACT. THE ASS ESSEE MADE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS AND FILED FORM DA, MANDATORY FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHIL E PASSING ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DID NOT CONSIDER ASSESSEES CLAIM UNDER SEC TION 80JJAA OF THE ACT. IN FACT, THERE WAS 3 ITA NO.1861/MUM/2018(A.Y.2011-12) NO REFERENCE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION LODGED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE F ILED RECTIFICATION PETITION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT ON 08/06/2016 FOR CONSIDERING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80JJAA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT REJECTED ASSESSEES CLAIM BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISIO N RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). THE PETITION OF THE ASSESSE S EEKING RECTIFICATION WAS NOT REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND OF MAINTAINABILITY. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDU CTION WAS FOR THE FIRST TIME CONSIDERED AND REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PROCEEDING S UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT, HENCE, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT BEFORE CIT(A) . 3.1. THE LD.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESS EE POINTED THAT IF ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN DELIBERATED AND DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT O RDER, THAN THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE FILED APPEAL ASSAILING THE DISALLOWANCE IN ASSESSMENT ORD ER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSE HAD NO OCCASION TO ASSAIL DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 JJAA IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ABSOLUTELY SILENT ON THE ISSUE . 3.2. THE LD.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THE GENUINE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE REJECTED MERELY ON TECHNI CALITY. TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENT THE LD.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- (I) CIT VS. GM KNITTING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., 376 ITR 456 (SC) (II) CIT VS. ABHINITHA FOUNDATION (P.) LTD. , 396 ITR 25 1 (MAD) (III) CHANDRAPRABHUJI MAHARAJ JAIN VS. DCIT (EXEM.), 266 TAXMAN 399 (MAD) THE LD.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FU RTHER CONTENDED THAT REJECTION OF CLAIM DESPITE ALL DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD CONSTITUT E A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE CONTE NDED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED A LL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80JJAA OF THE ACT . HOWEVE R, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS A MISTAKE 4 ITA NO.1861/MUM/2018(A.Y.2011-12) ON THE PART OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT CONSIDERING ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. THE LD.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE TO BUT TRESS HIS CONTENTION PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS: ANCHOR PRESSINGS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT, 161 ITR 169 (SC). 3.3. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSES SEE FINALLY SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS INHERENT POWER TO CONSIDER ASSESSEES CLAIM NOT MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRUTHVI BROKERS AND SHARE HOLDERS, 349 ITR 233 (BOM). 4. PER CONTRA, MS. MAMTA BANSAL, REPRESENTING THE D EPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD.DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER MADE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80JJAA OF THE ACT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME/REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. AS PER DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSE, THE ASSESSE LODGED ITS FRESH CLAIM OF DEDUCTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 28-3-2015, WHEREAS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 27-3-2015 I.E. PRIOR TO THE CLA IM MADE BY THE ASSESSE. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER ASSES SEES CLAIM DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT NON CONSIDERATION OF A CLAIM, NOT MADE IN RETURN OF INCOME DURING ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT AMOUNT TO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE SCOPE FOR INV OKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE IS VERY NARROW. A FRESH C LAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. 5. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSE CLARIFIED THAT THE FRESH CLAIM WAS FILED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. TILL THE FILING OF THE CLAIM, THE ASSESSE WAS NOT AWARE THAT THE ASSES SMENT ORDER WAS PASSED. THE ASSESSE MADE CLAIM WELL WITHIN HIS RIGHTS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S154 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOWHERE OB SERVED THAT THE CLAIM WAS MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY RIVAL SIDE S AND HAVE EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED VARIOUS DECISIONS ON WHICH THE LD.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE. 5 ITA NO.1861/MUM/2018(A.Y.2011-12) 7. UNDISPUTEDLY, IN THE PRESENT CASE ASSESSEE DID N OT MAKE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80JJAA OF THE ACT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OR REVISE D RETURN OF INCOME. THE FRESH CLAIM WAS ALLEGEDLY MADE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27/03/2015, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY NOTE OF ASSESSEES SAID CLAIM. WE OBSERVE, IN FACT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO OCCAS ION TO CONSIDER ASSESSEES FRESH CLAIM AS THE SAME WAS FILED ON 28/3/2015 I.E. ONE DAY AFTER THE PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE FILED PETITION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE AC T FOR CONSIDERING ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80JJAA OF THE ACT. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT REJECTED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80JJAA EXPRESSING HIS INABILITY TO ENTERTAIN THE SAME IN T HE LIGHT OF DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). IN FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE CIT(A) REJECTED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MERELY ON TH E GROUND THAT FOR NECESSARY RELIEF THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE APPEALED AGAINST THE ASSESS MENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AND NOT IN APPEAL AGAINST ORDER SEEKING RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. 8. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEAL THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE MENTION OF ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER, AS THE CLAIM WAS OSTENSIBLY RECEIVED AFTER THE PASSING OF ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSE IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT AND REJECTED THE SAME ON THE GROUND OF JURISDICTION. THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE TO THE ASSE SSE WHEN ITS CLAIM WAS CONSIDERED AND REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE BACK DROP OF THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE VIEW OF CIT (A) FOR REJECTING ASSESSES CLAIM OF DE DUCTION AT THE OUTSET BY TAKING PEDANTIC AND HYPER-TECHNICAL APPROACH. 9. AS THE ASSESSE FAILED TO MAKE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80JJAA OF THE ACT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN R EJECTING ASSESSEES CLAIM IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). HOWEVER, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT PRECLUDE D FROM ENTERTAINING ASSESSEES FRESH CLAIM NOT MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRUTHVI BROKERS & SHAREHOLDERS (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT AN ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RAISE BEFORE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES ADDITIONAL CLAIMS NOT MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. TAKING INTO 6 ITA NO.1861/MUM/2018(A.Y.2011-12) CONSIDERATION ENTIRETY OF FACTS WE ARE OF CONSIDERE D VIEW THAT ASESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80JJAA OF THE ACT DESERVES TO BE ADMI TTED FOR CONSIDERATION. 10. SINCE, LEGALITY AND QUANTUM OF THE CLAIM WERE N OT EXAMINED BY ANY OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WITHOUT COMMENTING ON MERIT OF CLAIM, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CON SIDERATION OF SAME. WHILE EXAMINING ASSESSEES CLAIM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALLOW REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSEESEE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSE . 12. THIS APPEAL WAS HEARD ON 30/01/2020. AS PER RU LE 34(5) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963, (ITAT RULES, 1963 ), THE ORDER WAS REQUIRED TO BE ORDINARILY PRONOUNCED WITHIN A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING OF APPEAL. THE INSTANT APPEAL WAS HEARD PRI OR TO THE LOCKDOWN DECLARED BY THE HONBLE PRIME MINISTER ON 24-03-2020 IN VIEW OF COV ID-19 PANDEMIC. THE LOCKDOWN WAS FORCED DUE TO EXTRA ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES CAUSED B Y WORLD WIDE SPREAD OF COVID-19. THEREAFTER, THE LOCKDOWN WAS EXTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. THEREFORE, THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF HEARING IS NOT UNDER ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUN AL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. JSW LTD., ITA NO.6264/MUM/2018 FOR A.Y 2013-14 DECIDED ON 14/05/2 020, UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 34(5) OF T HE ITAT RULES, 1963, JUDGEMENTS RENDERED BY HONBLE APEX COURT AND THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT ON THE ISSUE OF TIME LIMIT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE CIR CUMSTANCES LEADING TO LOCKDOWN HELD:- 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 O F ORDERS WITHIN 90 DAYS, DISREGARDING THE IMPORTANT FACT THAT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY WAS IN LOCKD OWN, WE SHOULD COMPUTE THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS BY EXCLUDING AT LEAST THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE LOCK DOWN WAS IN FORCE. WE MUST FACTOR GROUND REALITIES IN MIND WHILE INTERPRETING THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE P RONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER. LAW IS NOT BROODING OMNIPOTENCE IN THE SKY. IT IS A PRAGMATIC TOOL OF T HE 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 INCONSONANCE WITH THE LE TTER AND SPIRIT OF RULE 34(5) BUT IS ALSO A PRAGMAT IC 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 HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ITSELF HAS, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 1 5TH APRIL 2020, HELD THAT DIRECTED WHILE 7 ITA NO.1861/MUM/2018(A.Y.2011-12) CALCULATING THE TIME FOR DISPOSAL OF MATTERS MADE T IME-BOUND BY THIS COURT, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH 2020 CONTINUES TO OPERATE SH ALL BE ADDED AND TIME SHALL STAND EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY . THE EXTRAORDINARY STEPS TAKEN SUO MOTU BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL 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 I N FORCE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, EVEN WITHOUT THE WORDS ORDINARILY, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE ANALY SIS OF THE LEGAL POSITION, THE PERIOD DURING WHICH ITA NO. 6103 AND LOCKOUT WAS IN FORCE IS TO EXCLUDED F OR THE PURPOSE OF TIME LIMITS SET OUT IN RULE 34(5) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. VIEWED THUS, TH E 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 CAN NOT BE ANY, BAR ON THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCHES TO REF IX THE MATTERS FOR CLARIFICATIONS BECAUSE OF CONSIDERABLE TIME LAG BETWEEN THE POINT OF TIME WHE N 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 CAS E. THUS, IN LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTS AND THE DECISION OF C OORDINATE BENCH, THE PRESENT ORDER IS PRONOUNCED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS. 13. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED UNDER RULE 34(4) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBU NAL) RULES, 1962, BY PLACING THE DETAILS ON THE NOTICE BOARD. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY THE 30 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020. SD/- SD/- (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) (VIKAS AWAST HY) &' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / MUMBAI, 6 %/ DATED 30/06/2020 VM , SR. PS(O/S) 8 ITA NO.1861/MUM/2018(A.Y.2011-12) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. - / THE APPELLANT , 2. ./ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 7/ ( )/ THE CIT(A)- 4. 7/ CIT 5. 89 ./% , . . . , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 9:; '< / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI