POWERNETICS EQUIPMENT INDIA PVT. LTD, MUMBAI V. THE ITO 9(2)4, MUMBAI

ITA 3078/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8396 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A MOHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: HARI S RAHEJA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Transfer pricing; International transaction; Additional evidence; Onus to prove; Set aside
• Section: 92C; 43B; 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH J , MUMBAI , # ,$ % BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N.K.PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . 3078 / /201 6 (. . 2011-12 ) ITA NO.3078/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) M/S. POWERNETICS EQUIPMENTS INDIA PVT. LTD. 7C,BINDYA, BANDRA RECLAMATION, BNDRA(W), MUMBAI 400 050 PAN: AAACP9311Q ...... - / APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 9(2)(4), AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 ..... #. / RESPONDENT -// APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARI S. RAHEJA #. // RESPONDENT BY : S/SHRI A.MOHAN & UODAL RAJ S INGH 0. / DATE OF HEARING : 16/01/2020 123 0. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/06/2020 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -21, MUMBAI (I N SHORT THE CIT(A)) DATED 25/02/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 . 2 ITA NO.3078/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM R ECORDS ARE: THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF UPS, PRIMARILY FOR INDIAN RAILWAYS. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON 29/09/2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOM E OF (-) RS.20,36,175/-.. DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO ENTERED INTO INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WITH IT S ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE (AE) M/S. POWERNETICS LTD. (UK) FOR SUPPLY OF UPS. IN S CRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIONS/DI SALLOWANCES ON FOLLOWING COUNTS: (I) DISALLOWANCE U/S 43B - RS.13,79,823/- (II) UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 - RS. 4,60,000/- (III)UNPROVED EXPENDITURE - RS. 3,77,965/- (IV)TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT - RS. 17,60,966/- AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER DATED 22/03/2014, PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CI T (A). THE CIT (A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN TOTO. HENCE, THE PRESENT APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE /APPELLANT. 3. SHRI HARI S. RAHEJA, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AT THE OUTSET THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING GROUND NO.1 OF THE A PPEAL RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.13,79,823/- MADE UNDER SECTION 4 3B OF THE ACT. 3 ITA NO.3078/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) 3.1. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.2, RELATING TO ADDITIO N ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT , THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE A DDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF LOANS TAKEN BY ASSESSEE FROM MS. TITLI T HIND- RS.1,50,000/- AND MS. ANITA CHAVAN RS.3,10,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD FIL ED COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE LOANS ALONG WITH CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE LENDERS. S INCE, THE ASSESSEE IN FIRST INSTANCE MERELY FAILED TO FILE PAN OF THE LENDERS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED ASSESSEES CONTENTION. SUBSEQUENTLY, VIDE LETTER D ATED 18/03/2014, THE ASSESSEE FILED PAN OF THE LENDERS. HOWEVER, THE AS SESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE SAME HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED I TS BURDEN. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT MS. ANITA CHAVAN IS THE PRIMARY MEMBER OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. SHE RE TIRED AS JOINT DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE AND CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNME NT OF MAHARASHTRA. SHE PASSED AWAY IN THE YEAR 2010 AND BEFORE HER DEMISE SHE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME OF MS. ANITA CHAVAN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND COPY O F BANK STATEMENT REFLECTING LOAN AMOUNT ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSE AS A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED COPY OF PAN AN D BANK STATEMENT OF MS. TITLI THIND, BEFORE THE CIT (A) AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THE ASSESSE DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS. THE CIT (A) DID NOT TAKE INTO COGNISAN CE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 3.2. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.3, RELATING TO DISALLO WANCE OF EXPENDITURE RS.3,77,965/-, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MANUFACTURED PROTO TYPE TRANSFORM ERS FOR INDIAN RAILWAYS AS 4 ITA NO.3078/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) PER PRE-DRAWN SPECIFICATIONS PROVIDED TO IT. HOWEV ER, DUE TO CHANGE IN THE SPECIFICATIONS BY RAILWAYS, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO STO P THE PROJECT. THE ASSESSE DECIDED WRITE OFF ACCUMULATED COST OF THE PROJECT E XPENSES THAT WAS SHELVED DUE TO CHANGE IN THE SPECIFICATIONS BY RAILWAYS. TH E ASSESSE WRITE OFF 10% ACCUMULATED COST IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED WRITING OFF OF SUCH ACCUMULATED COST BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35D OF THE ACT. AT FIRST APPELLATE STAGE, THE CIT(A) DID NOT APPROVE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION OF INVOKING PROVISIONS O F SECTION 35D, HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) DISALLOWED WRITE OFF EXPENDITURE ON THE GROU ND THAT SINCE PROJECT IS ON HOLD THERE IS NO REASON TO CLAIM EXPENDITURE. THE L D. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 SIMILA R DISALLOWANCE WAS CLAIMED. THE ISSUED TRAVELLED TO THE TRIBUNAL. TH E TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES CASE IN ITA NO.1393/MUM/2017 DECIDED ON 26/03/2019 ALLOW ED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF AMORTIZATION OF EXPENDITURE ON THE PROJECT IN TEN E QUAL INSTALMENTS. 3.3. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN GROUND NO.4 OF TH E APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSFER PRICI NG (TP) ADJUSTMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO TRANSACTION FOR SUPPLY OF TRANSFORMERS WITH ITS AE IN UK. THE ASSESSEE FILED AUDIT REPORT UNDER SECTION 92ECB OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPUTED PROFIT MARGIN ON TRANSACTION WITH ITS AE AT COST PLUS 10%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATED PROFIT MARGIN NOT ONLY IN RESPECT OF SALE TRANSACTION BUT ALSO IN RESPECT OF SERVICE CHARGES AT COST PLUS 15%. THE L D. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN COMPUTING PROFIT MARGIN IN RESPECT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTI ON BY ADOPTING MARGINS OF 5 ITA NO.3078/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT P ROFIT MARGIN ON GOODS SOLD TO THE AE WAS 12% AND THE COMPUTATION OF THE SAME W AS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE SAME ON THE BASIS OF THE GP DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMEN T YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT 15% GP IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO CONSISTS OF GAIN ON SALE OF ASSETS I.E. F ACTORY BUILDING AND SUNDRY BALANCES WRITTEN BACK ALONG WITH FIXED DEPOSIT INTE REST. THE LD.AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED THAT IF ABOV E NON-OPERATING BALANCES ARE REDUCED, THERE WOULD BE LOSS. THE LD. AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE MARGIN OF COST PLUS 10% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FAIR AND REASONABLE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THA T EVEN IN CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFERED LOSSES. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI A.MOHAN, CIT-DR , REPRES ENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND PRAYED F OR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENT IN THE FORM OF AGREEMENT, ETC. TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT FOR SUPPLY OF TRANSFORMERS TO ITS OVERSEAS AE THE MARK UP OF COST PLUS 10% IS AT ARMS LENGTH. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY LIST OF COMPARABLES IN TP STUDY FOR FAR ANALYSIS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY RIVAL SIDE S AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMI NED THE PAPER BOOK FILEDE BY THE ASSESSE. THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL HAS RAISED F IVE GROUNDS. 6 ITA NO.3078/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) 5.1. THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL, IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. THE LD. AUTHORIZED R EPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE STATED AT THE BAR THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING GROUND NO.1. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT MADE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED . 5.2. IN GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED CONFIRMING OF ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.4,60,000/-. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ASSESSEE HAD TAK EN LOANS FROM MS. TITLI THIND RS.1,50,000/- AND MS. ANITA CHAVAN RS.3,10,000/-. T HE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE CIT(A) TO SUBSTANTIATE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS AND THE LENDERS. THE ASSESSEE FILED B ANK STATEMENTS OF THE CREDITORS ALONG WITH PAN DETAILS AND CONFIRMATIONS. THE CIT (A) HAS BRUSHED ASIDE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ENTIRETY OF FACTS, WE DEEM IT APPROPR IATE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSES SEE BEFORE THE CIT (A). THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE RE-ADJUDICATING THIS ISSUE SHALL GRANT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW. THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE . 5.3. THE GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL IS WITH RESPECT TO REJECTION OF ASSESSEES CLAIM OF WRITE OFF OF PROJECT EXPENSES RS.3,77,965/ -. THE ASSESSEE HAS AMORTIZED PROJECT COST THAT WAS SHELVED DUE TO CHAN GE IN SPECIFICATIONS, OVER A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR CLAIM WA S MADE BY THE ASSESSE IN AY 2012-13. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWANCE THE SAM E FOR SIMILAR REASONS. AFTER BEING UNSUCCESSFUL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE 7 ITA NO.3078/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) CARRIED THE ISSUE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1393/MUM/2017 (SUPRA). THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AFTER CONSIDERING T HE FACTS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF AMORTIZATION. THE FACTS IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE IDENTICAL. FOR PARITY OF REASONS WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION AND ALLOW WRITE OFF OF PROPORTIONATE ( 10%) EXPENDITURE. THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED, ACCORDINGLY. 5.4. IN GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED ADDITION OF RS.17,60,966/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF TP ADJUSTMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED COST PLUS @10% MARGIN ON THE SALES MADE TO ITS AE IN UK. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TH E ASSESSING OFFICER MADE TP ADJUSTMENT BY ESTIMATING PROFIT MARGIN @15% ON T HE BASIS OF GP DECLARED IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. THE AO APPLIED PROFIT MARGIN OF 15% ON SALES AND SERVICE CHARGES T O AE. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT 15% PROFIT MARGIN ADOPTED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IS WRONG AS IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE PROFIT MARGIN OF 15% INCLUDES GAIN ON SALE OF ASSETS BEING FACTORY BUILDING AND SUNDRY BA LANCES WRITTEN BACK INCLUDING INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS. IN FACT IN THE SUBSEQU ENT ASSESSMENT YEAR THERE IS NEGATIVE GP AS THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFERED LOSSES. W E ARE OF CONSIDERED VIEW THAT MERELY FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSE HAS DEC LARED HIGHER GP IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR, CURRENT YEAR GP SHOULD NOT BE ESTI MATED BY ADOPTING THE SAME. FURTHER, THE CASE OF ASSESSE IS THAT 15% GP IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR HAS BEEN COMPUTED AFTER INCLUSION OF SALE OF ASSETS, ETC. AN D HENCE, IT DOES NOT DEPICT CORRECT PICTURE OF OPERATING PROFITS. WE FURTHER OB SERVE THAT THE ASSESSE HAS ALSO FAILED TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS AS REQUIRED UNDER TRANSFER PRICING PROVISIONS. ARMS LENGTH PRICE OF THE TRANSACTION W ITH AE HAS TO BE DETERMINED 8 ITA NO.3078/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) BY APPLYING ONE OF THE METHOD PRESCRIBED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 92C OF THE ACT. UNDER THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE- NOVO ADJUDICATION AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THI S ISSUE ARE SET ASIDE AND THE GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 5.5. THE GROUND NO.5 OF THE APPEAL IS GENERAL IN NA TURE AND, HENCE, REQUIRE NO ADJUDICATION. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLO WED . 7. THIS APPEAL WAS HEARD ON 16/01/2020. AS PER RUL E 34(5) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963, (ITAT RULES, 1963), THE ORDER WAS REQUIRED TO BE ORDINARILY PRONOUNCED WITHIN A PER IOD OF 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING OF APPEAL. THE IN STANT APPEAL WAS HEARD PRIOR TO THE LOCKDOWN DECLARED ON 24-03-2020 IN VIEW OF C OVID-19 PANDEMIC. THE LOCKDOWN WAS FORCED DUE TO EXTRA ORDINARY CIRCUMSTA NCES CAUSED BY WORLD WIDE SPREAD OF COVID-19. THEREAFTER, THE LOCKDOWN W AS EXTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. THEREFORE, THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER BEY OND THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF HEARING IS NOT UNDER ORDINARY CI RCUMSTANCES. THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL 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 THE ITAT RULES, 1963, JUDGEMENTS RENDERED BY HONBLE APEX COURT AND THE HONBLE BOMBAY 9 ITA NO.3078/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) HIGH COURT ON THE ISSUE OF TIME LIMIT FOR PRONOUNCE MENT OF ORDERS BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES 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 P RONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS WITHIN 90 DAYS, DISREGARDING THE IMPORTANT FACT THAT THE ENTI RE COUNTRY WAS IN LOCKDOWN, WE SHOULD COMPUTE THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS BY EXCLUDING A T LEAST THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE LOCKDOWN WAS IN FORCE. WE MUST FACTOR GROUND RE ALITIES 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 OR DER. 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 INCONS ONANCE 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 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 SHALL STAND EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY . THE EXTRAORDINARY STEPS TAKEN SUO MOTU BY HONBLE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND HONBLE SUPREME COURT ALSO INDICATE THAT THIS PERIO D OF LOCKDOWN 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 ORDINA RILY, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL POSITION, THE PERIOD DURING W HICH ITA NO. 6103 AND LOCKOUT WAS IN FORCE IS TO EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TIME LIM ITS SET OUT IN RULE 34(5) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. VIEWED THUS, THE EX CEPTION, 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 A NY, BAR ON THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCHES TO REFIX THE MATTERS FOR CLARIFICATIONS BEC AUSE OF CONSIDERABLE TIME LAG BETWEEN THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE HEARING IS CONCL UDED 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. THUS, IN LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTS AND THE DECISION OF C OORDINATE BENCH, THE PRESENT ORDER IS PRONOUNCED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF 90 DAYS. 10 ITA NO.3078/MUM/2016(A.Y.2011-12) 8. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. OR DER PRONOUNCED UNDER RULE 34(4) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) R ULES, 1962, BY PLACING THE DETAILS ON THE NOTICE BOARD. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2 020. SD/- SD/- (N.K.PRADHAN) (VIKAS AWASTHY) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / MUMBAI, 5 '/ DATED 22/06/2020 VM , SR. PS (O/S) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. - / THE APPELLANT , 2. #. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 6. ( )/ THE CIT(A)- 4. 6. CIT 5. 78 #.' , . . . , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 89: ;< / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI