Sh. Tarlok Kumar, Pro. Hotel Shagu, Bathinda V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

ITA 501/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8274 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-12-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Set aside

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM . .. . / ITA NO.501/ASR/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-2010) TARLOK KUMAR, PROP. HOTEL SHAGUN, NEW BASTI, GALI NO.1 BATHINDA-151001 C/O: SH. S.K.BANSAL, ADVOCATE OPP.A-BLOCK GURUDWARA, B-641, RANJIT AVENUE, AMRITSAR-143001 VS. ACIT, C-1, BATHINDA ./ PANNO. : AAGAM 0541 H ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ! ' '' ' /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TARUN BANSAL, ADVOCATE ' '' ' /REVENUE BY : SHRI CHARAN DASS, DR ' ' / DATE OF HEARING : 07/02/2020 ' ' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/06/2020 / O R D E R PER L.P.SAHU, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF CIT(A), BATHINDA, DATED 30.05.2014, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THAT THE ID. CIT(A) WRONGLY CONFIRM ED ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- IN THE NAME OF SH. SURESH KUMAR AS CA SH CREDIT, AND DID NOT ALLOW TELESCOPIC BENEFIT OUT OF AMOUNT SURR ENDERED AT RS.35 LACS DURING SURVEY DATED 21.01.2009. 2. THAT THE ID. CIT(A) WRONGLY CONFIRMED ADD ITION OF RS.6,00,000/- IN THE NAME OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR AS CASH CREDIT, AND DI D NOT ALLOW TELESCOPIC BENEFIT OUT OF AMOUNT SURRENDERED AT RS. 35 LACS DURING SURVEY DATED 21.01.2009. 3. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WRONGLY CONFIRMED ADDIT ION TO BUILDING ACCOUNT AT RS.3,45,156/- WITHOUT TELESCOPING THE AMOUNT SUR RENDERED AT RS.35 LACS IN SURVEY DATED 21.01.2009. 4. THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COOPERATED AND SURRENDERED RS.35 LACS IN SURVEY DATED 21.01.20 09 WHEN IT WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF BUSINESS AND NO BENEFIT OF SURREN DER WAS ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ALLOWED DEPRECIAT ION ON THE HOTEL BUILDING VALUED AT RS.76,02,895/-, NOR HE HAS GIVEN ANY FINDING ON ITA NO.501/ASR/2014 2 DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION, ON A SPECIFIC GROUND TAKEN BEFORE HIM. 6. THAT THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FA CTS. THE ORDER MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE MODIFIED OR ANY OTHER RELIEF BE ALLOWED. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S ENGAGED IN HOTEL AND RESTAURANT BUSINESS AND FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 22.09.2009. A SURVEY U/S.133A(1) OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINES S PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, HOTEL SHAGUN, BARNALA BY-PASS ON 21.01.20 09 AND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY RS.960/- WAS FOUND IN CASH AND THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED TO TAX AN AMOUNT OF RS.35,00,000/- AS ITS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010 SUBJECT TO NO PENAL ACTIO N UNDER THE I.T.ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE ALSO ADMITTED THE UNDISCLOSED IN VESTMENT OF RS.35 LAKHS IN THE HOTEL SHAGUN. THEREAFTER THE AO ISSUED STATU TORY NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE. FINALLY, THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ASS ESSING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.38,95,160/-. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSI ONS OF ASSESSEE AND FINDINGS OF AO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E. 4. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 5. GROUND NOS.1, 2, 3 & 4 ARE ARISING OUT OF THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE AO U/S.69B OF THE ACT AT RS.14,45,156/-(RS.5,00,000 +6,00,000 +3,45,156), THEREFORE, THEY ARE DISPOSED OFF TOGETHE R. ITA NO.501/ASR/2014 3 6. LD. AR BEFORE US REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BE FORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND IN ADDITION TO THIS, LD. AR SUB MITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ACCOUNTANT HAS FILED WRONG BALANCE SHEET AND THE MATTER WAS ALSO COULD NOT PRES ENT BEFORE THE AO BECAUSE SOME IMPOUNDED PAPERS RELATING TO THE CONSIDER ATION OF HOTEL BUSINESS WAS NOT RELATED TO THIS IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THIS MATTER WAS ALSO TAKEN UP BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT THE CIT(A) DISPOSED OFF THIS MATTER BY STATING THAT THE REMAND REPORT IS SI LENT IN THIS REGARD AND HE DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE FACT THE IMPUGNED RE CORDS AND TO TAKE A REMEDIAL ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 BUT TILL DATE NO ANY REMEDIAL ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE AO . LD. AR ALSO REQUESTED FOR THE TELESCOPING FROM THE SURRENDERED AM OUNT OF RS.35 LAKHS AS SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCE EDINGS AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. FINALLY, LD. AR REQUESTE D TO SEND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FURTHER VERIFICAT ION OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSEES EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CON STRUCTION OF THE HOTEL BUILDING WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD AND DOES NOT RELATE TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR BUT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO IN THIS YEAR. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED DURING THE COURSE OF SU RVEY PROCEEDINGS OF RS.35 LAKHS AND PAID THE TAXES SUBJECT TO SOME CO NDITIONS. THE ITA NO.501/ASR/2014 4 ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT JUSTIFY THE LOAN TAKEN, WHIC H HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DECIDED BY THE CIT(A). DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A), A REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR F ROM THE AO ON THE BASIS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS/OBJECTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE REJOINDER THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE OBJ ECTIONS RAISED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE RESTORED. 8. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSING THE ENTI RE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELO W AND PAPER BOOKS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE NOTED FROM THE IMPOUNDED P APER OBTAINED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, IT IS CLEAR THAT SOME OF THE EXPENDITURE WHICH ARE NOT RELATED TO THE IMPUGNED ASS ESSMENT YEAR AND THIS OBJECTION WAS ALSO TAKEN BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT PROPERLY DEALT THIS MATTER WHILE DECIDING THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, AS PER OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FURTHER VERIFICATION REGARDING THE ADDITION MADE ON THE HOTEL BUILDING. THE AO IS ALSO DIRECTED TO GIVE TELESCOPING FROM THE SURRENDERED IF THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TAXES O N THE ENTIRE SURRENDERED AMOUNT. IF IT IS FOUND OTHERWISE, THEN TH E AO IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE AMOUNT ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TA XES THEREON. THE AO IS ALSO DIRECTED TO GRANT DEPRECIATION IF THE ASSES SEE IS ELIGIBLE AS PER THE INCOME TAX ACT ON THE HOTEL BUILDING AND IF THE DEPRECIATION WAS NOT CLAIMED WHILE CALCULATING THE TAXABLE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.501/ASR/2014 5 NEEDLESS TO SAY, A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE AO FOR EARLY DISPOSAL OF THE CASE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 9. NOW, A PROCEDURAL ISSUE COMES BEFORE US THAT THO UGH THE HEARING OF THE CAPTIONED APPEAL WAS CONCLUDED ON 07.02.2020, HOWEVER, THIS ORDER IS BEING PRONOUNCED MUCH AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 9 0 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF CONCLUSION OF HEARING. WE FIND THAT RULE 34( 5) OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1962, WHICH ENVISAGES THE PROCEDURE FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ORDERS, PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: 34(5) THE PRONOUNCEMENT MAY BE IN ANY OF THE FOLLOW ING MANNERS: - (A) THE BENCH MAY PRONOUNCE THE ORDER IMMEDIATELY U PON THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING. (B) IN CASE WHERE THE ORDER IS NOT PRONOUNCED IMME DIATELY ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING, THE BENCH SHALL GIVE A D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT. (C) IN A CASE WHERE NO DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT IS GIV EN BY THE BENCH, EVERY ENDEAVOUR SHALL BE MADE BY THE BENCH TO PRONO UNCE THE ORDER WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE HEARING O F 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 ORD ER, AND SUCH DATE SHALL NOT ORDINARILY BE A DAY BEYOND A FURTHER PERI OD OF 30 DAYS AND DUE NOTICE OF THE DAY SO FIXED SHALL BE GIVEN ON TH E NOTICE BOARD. AS SUCH, ORDINARILY, THE ORDER ON AN APPEAL SHOULD BE PRONOUNCED BY THE BENCH WITHIN NO MORE THAN 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE O F 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 HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF SHIVSAGAR VEG RESTAURANT VS ACIT (2009) 319 ITR 433 (BOM), WH EREIN, IT WAS, INTER ALIA , OBSERVED AS UNDER: ITA NO.501/ASR/2014 6 WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE PRESIDENT OF THE APPELLA TE 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 I SSUE 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 W ITHIN SHORTEST REASONABLE TIME AND FOLLOWED STRICTLY BY ALL THE BE NCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE MEANWHILE (EMPHASIS, BY UNDERLINING, SUPPLIE D BY US NOW),ALL THE REVISIONAL AND APPELLATE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE INCO ME-TAX ACT ARE DIRECTED TO DECIDE MATTERS HEARD BY THEM WITHIN A P ERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE CASE IS CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT. IN THE RULES SO FRAMED, AS A RESULT OF THESE DIRECTI ONS, THE EXPRESSION ORDINARILY HAS BEEN INSERTED IN THE REQUIREMENT T O PRONOUNCE THE ORDER WITHIN A PERIOD OF 90DAYS. THE QUESTION THEN AR ISES WHETHER THE PASSING OF THIS ORDER, BEYOND NINETY DAYS, WAS NECESS ITATED BY ANY EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. 10. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE AFORESAID ISSUE HAS BEEN A NSWERED BY A COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIZ; ITAT, MUMBAI F BENCH IN DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI VS JSW LIMITED & ORS (I TA NO.6264/MUM/18 DATED 14.5.2020, WHEREIN, IT WAS OBSE RVED AS UNDER: 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 EXTENDE D FROM TIME TO TIME. AS A MATTER OF FACT, EVEN BEFORE THIS FORMAL NATIONWIDE LOCKDOWN, THE FUNCTIONING OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNA L 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 EPI DEMIC SITUATION IN MUMBAI BEING GRAVE, THERE WAS NOT MUCH OF A RELAXAT ION IN SUBSEQUENT LOCKDOWNS ALSO. IN ANY CASE, THERE WAS UNPRECEDENTE D DISRUPTION OF JUDICIAL WOK ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. AS A MATTER OF F ACT, IT HAS BEEN SUCH AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION, CAUSING DISRUPTION IN THE FUNCTIONING OF JUDICIAL MACHINERY, THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF I NDIA, IN AN UNPRECEDENTED ORDER IN THE HISTORY OF INDIA AND VID E ORDER DATED 6.5.2020 READ WITH ORDER DATED 23.3.2020, EXTENDED THE LIMITATION TO EXCLUDE NOT ONLY THIS LOCKDOWN PERIOD BUT ALSO AFEW 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 ITA NO.501/ASR/2014 7 ON WHICH THE LOCKDOWN IS LIFTED IN THE JURISDICTION AL AREA WHERE THE DISPUTE LIES OR WHERE THE CAUSE OF ACTION ARISES SH ALL BE EXTENDED FOR A PERIOD OF 15 DAYS AFTER THE LIFTING OF LOCKDOWN. H ONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN AN ORDER DATED 15TH APRIL 2020, HAS, BESI DES EXTENDING THE VALIDITY OF ALL INTERIM ORDERS, HAS ALSO OBSERVED T HAT, 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 26 TH MARCH 2020 CONTINUES TO OPERATE SHALL BE ADDED AND TIME SHALL STAND EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY, AND ALSO OBSERVED THAT ARRANGEMENT C ONTINUED BY AN ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH 2020 TILL 30TH APRIL 2020 SH ALL CONTINUE FURTHER TILL 15TH JUNE2020. IT HAS BEEN AN UNPRECEDENTED S ITUATION NOT ONLY IN INDIA BUT ALL OVER THE WORLD. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA H AS, VIDE NOTIFICATION DATED 19TH FEBRUARY 2020, TAKEN THE STAND THAT, THE CORONAVIRUS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A CASE OF NATURAL CALAMITY AN D FMC (I.E. FORCE MAJEURE CLAUSE) MAYBE INVOKED, WHEREVER CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE, FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCEDURE.... THE TERM FORCE MA JEURE HAS BEEN DEFINED IN BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, AS AN EVENT OR EFFECT THAT CAN BE NEITHER ANTICIPATED NOR CONTROLLED WHEN SUCH IS TH E POSITION, AND IT IS OFFICIALLY SO NOTIFIED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA A ND THE COVID-19 EPIDEMIC HAS BEEN NOTIFIED AS A DISASTER 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 B E 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 PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS WITHIN 90 DAYS, DISREGARDIN G THE IMPORTANT FACT THAT THE ENTIRE COUNTRY WAS IN LOCKDOWN, WE SH OULD 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 O F THE ORDER. LAW IS NOT BROODING OMNIPOTENCE IN THE SKY. IT IS A PRAGMA TIC TOOL OF THE 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 PRAGMATIC APPROACH AT A TIME WH EN 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)], HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DID NOT APPRO VE 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 15TH APRIL2020, HELD THAT DIRECTED WHILE CAL CULATING THE TIME FOR DISPOSAL OF MATTERS MADE TIME-BOUND BY THIS COURT, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH 2020 CONTINUES TO OPERAT E SHALL BE ADDED AND TIME SHALL STAND EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY. THE EXT RAORDINARY 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 NORM AL TIME LIMITS ARE TO REMAIN IN FORCE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, EVEN WI THOUT THE WORDS ORDINARILY, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL POSITION, THE PERIOD DURING WHICH LOCKOUT WAS IN FORCE IS TO EXCL UDED FOR THE PURPOSE ITA NO.501/ASR/2014 8 OF TIME LIMITS SET OUT IN RULE 34(5) OF THE APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. VIEWED THUS, THE EXCEPTION, TO 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FO R 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. 11. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDICIAL DECISI ON OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE CO NSIDERED VIEW THAT THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE LOCKDOWN WAS IN FORC E SHALL STAND EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT THE TIME LIMI T FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, AS ENVISAGED IN RULE 34(5) O F THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN PURSUANCE WITH RULE 34(4) OF I TAT RULES, 1963 BY PUTTING THE COPY OF THE SAME ON NOTICE BOAR D ON 30/06 /2020 AT AMRITSAR. SD/ - (RAVISH SOOD) SD/ - (L.P.SAHU) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / AMRITSAR; , DATED 30/06/2020 PRAKASH KUMAR MISHRA, SR.P.S. ' '' ' - - - - .- .- .- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR 1. / THE APPELLANT- TARLOK KUMAR, PROP. HOTEL SHAGUN, NEW BASTI, GALI NO.1 BATHINDA-151001 C/O: SH. S.K.BANSAL, ADVOCATE OPP.A-BLOCK GURUDWARA, B-641, RANJIT AVENUE, AMRITSAR-143001 2. / THE RESPONDENT- ACIT, C-1, BATHINDA 3. / ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / / CIT 5. - , , /DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR 6. / GUARD FILE. - //TRUE COPY//