GTL LTD, NAVI MUMBAI V. ACIT LTU-2, MUMBAI

ITA 588/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6682 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SIMI SAMANT
• Keywords: Capital asset; Earning of tax free income; Tax effect; Commercial expediency; Revised return
• Section: 13; 22; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH , J M & SHRI S . RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM ./ I.T.A. NO . 588 / MUM/ 2019 & CROSS OBJECTION NO. 192/MUM/2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 ) GTL LTD. 412, JANMABHOOM I CHAMBERS, 29, WALCHAND HIRACHAND MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI - 400 038 / VS. A CIT , LTU - 2, 29 TH FLOOR, CENTRE - 1, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, MUMBAI. ./ ./ PAN NO. A AACG 3742 L ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) & ./ I.T.A. NO . 937 / MUM/ 2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013 - 14 ) ACIT, LTU - 2, 29 TH FLOOR, CENTRE - 1, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, MUMBAI. / VS. GTL LTD. 412, JANMABHOOMI CHAMBERS, 29, WALCHAND HIRACHAND MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI - 400 038 ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI YOGESH THAR, AR / RESPONDENTBY : SHRI SIMI SAMANT, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 21.01.2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.06.2020 2 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. / O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) : THE PRESENT TWO APPEAL AND ONE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMIS S IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3 , MUMBAI IN SHO RT LD. CIT(A) DA TED 01.10.18 FOR AY 2013 - 14 RESPECTIVE LY. 2 . SINC E THE ISSUES RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS /CO ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, FOR TH E SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THESE APPEALS ARE CLUBBED, HEARD AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDE R. FIRSTLY, WE ARE TA KING APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 588/MUM/2019 FOR AY 2 013 - 14. 3 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE, ASSESSEE FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 14, DECLARING TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 1 , 89, 7 0,49,633 / - WAS ELECTRONICALLY FILED ON 26 . 11 . 2013. SUBSEQUENTLY , ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME DE CLARING TOTAL LOSS OF RS. 1 , 90,80,77,269 / - ON 10 . 11 . 2014 . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143 (2) AND 142 (1) WERE ISSUED AND SERVED O N THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE , AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RELEVANT INFORMATION AS 3 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. CA LLED FOR. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY MAKING DISALLOWANCES AS THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED EXEMPT INCOME DURING THIS YEAR. 4 AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE ORDER , ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL B EFORE LD. CIT (A) AND LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER , HE OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEES INVESTMENT IN SHARES WERE MORE THAN ITS INTEREST - FREE FUNDS BY WAY OF SHARE CAPITAL AND RESERVES. ACCORDINGLY , HE ISSUED ENHANCEMENT NO TICE TO ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS THE PART OF GLOBAL GROUP, A DIVERSIFIED TECHNOLOGY AND INFRASTRUCTU RE SERVICES COMPANY FOCUSED ON TELECOM AND P OWER. THE MAIN OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPANY ARE, PROVIDES NETWORK SERVICE SOLUTION S TO TELECOM OPERATORS, OEMS AND TOWER COMPANIES. IN THE POWER SECTOR , THE ASSESSEE OFFERS EPC SERVICES, DISTRIBUTION F RANCHISEE AND GRID S OLUTIONS TO UTILITIES AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INTEGRATED NETWORK SERVICES PROVIDER ( NSP ) ENGAG ES IN ACTIV ITIES LIKE NETWORK, PLANNING & DESIGN AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES , 4 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. NETWORK DEPLOYMENT, NETWORK OPERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE & ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND POWER M ANAGEMENT. THERE WERE IMMENSE OPPORTUNITIES DUE TO EXPONENTIAL INITIAL GROWTH IN THE TELECOM S ECTOR IN THE Y EARS OF INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSEE WAS STRATEGICALLY FOCUSING ON PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICE ASPECTS AND WAS ACTIVELY PURSUING OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AS A FUTURE FOCUS. FURTHER ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TH E MAJORITY OF THE INVESTMENTS W ERE IN ITS ASSOCIATE COMPANIES, CHEN NAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LTD (CNIL) OF RS.1 637 CRORES AND GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD OF RS.2 91.23CRORES. THE CNIL AND GIL MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR TO THE REVENUE OF THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE F ROM GIL AND CNIL. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT CNIL IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING SHAREABLE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES ON BUILD, OWN AND OPERATE BASIS FOR DIVERSE RANGE OF CUSTOMERS OPERATING IN THE TELECOM SECTOR. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT CNIL AL SO OWNS A PASSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE UNDERTAKING CONSISTING OF TOWERS. T HE INVESTMENT IN CNIL WOULD ALSO HELP TO INCREASE THE COMPANYS REVENUE BY PROVIDING OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR 5 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. PASSIVE TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE UNDERTAKINGS. FURTHER ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE FUNDS I NVESTED IN SHARES OF G IL AND CNIL WERE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE RE LIED ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF S. A. BUILDERS VERSUS CIT IN 288 ITR 1. FURTHER ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE PURPOSE FO R WHICH BORROWING IS UTILISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE PURPOSE SHOULD SATISFY THE TES T OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE UTILIZED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN ASSOCIATE COMPANIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING SUBSTANTIAL OP ERATIONAL BUSINESS FROM THOSE COMPANIES. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF CIT VERSUS RELIANCE COMMUNICATION I NFRASTRUCTURE LTD 21TAXMANN.COM 118 AND A CIT VERSUS TULIP STAR HOTELS LT D. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE LD. CIT(A) R EJ ECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RELYING ON THE DECISION OF S. A. BUILDERS ( SUPRA ) AND OBSERVED THAT THE SISTER CONCERNS HAVE UTIL ISED THE FUNDS FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN OTHER C ONCERNS AND IN CURRENT INVESTMENTS. FURTHER HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN HOW THE CAPITAL ADVANCES OF RS.1 6 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. 064.02 AND INVESTMENT IN UNITS OF MUTUAL FUNDS OF RS.356.25 SERVED ON THE ASSES SEE'S BUSINESS. THEREFORE HE OPI NED THAT THE FUND I NVESTED IN CNIL AND GIL WAS U TILISED BY THOSE COMPANIES NOT F OR THEIR BUSINESS BUT FOR MAKING I NVESTMENTS IN OTHER CONCERNS OR IN MUTUAL FUNDS ETC. THEREFORE , HE REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INVESTMENT IS MADE FOR BUSINESS EXP EDIENCY I . E CORRECT IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE , MUST HAVE IMMEDIATE NEXUS WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, IN OTHER WORDS THE MONEY MUST BE USED FOR THE ASSESSEES OWN BUSINESS OR FOR BUSINESS OF ITS SUBSIDIARY DIRECTLY FOR ITS BUSINESS. IN CASE WH ERE THE FUNDS BORROWED BY THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN TO ANOTHER CONCERN AND SUCH ANOTHER CONCERN USES THE MONEY TO YET ANOTHER CONCERN THEN THERE IS NO BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. 6. AS PER THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AG G REGATING TO RS.2639.75 CRORES A ND HE OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED FINANCE COST OF RS.540.92 CRORES. AND HE OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE S LONG - TERM BORROWING OF RS.2 900.60 C RORES A ND SHORT - TERM BORROWING OF 7 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. RS.245.65. THEREFORE , ON PRO RATA BASIS , THE FIN ANCE COST ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE INV E STMENT OF RS.1343.10 CRORES WAS CALCULATED TO RS.230.91. ACCORDINGLY , HE DIRECTED ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW U NDER SECTION 36(1)(III) OF THE A CT. 7. FURTHER , HE REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COST OF M AKING INVESTMENT IN SHARES IN GIL AND CNIL WERE ALLOWABLE, AS BUSINESS OF THOSE COMPANIES WERE CLOSELY CONNECTED WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE FUNDS INVESTED IN THE SHARES WERE APPLIED BY THOSE COMPANIES FOR THEIR BUSINESS. 8. AGGRIEVED WITH TH E ABOVE ORDER , ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ALSO FILED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL. 9. SINCE THE MAIN GROUNDS ARE INTER - RELATED AND INTER - CONNECTED, THEREFORE DISPOSED OF BY THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER. IN RESPECT OF ADDITI ONAL GROUNDS, ALL THE RELEVANT INFORMATION ARE ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE RECORD, THEREFORE THESE ARE LEGAL IN NATURE. 8 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCEPTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF ADJUDICATION. 10. BEFORE US , LD. AR SUBMITTED A W RITTEN SUBMISSION AND ALSO ARGUED THE CONTENT OF T HE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. F OR THE SAKE OF CLARITY , IT IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 2.2.1 THE APPELLANT, A PART OF GLOBAL GROUP, IS A DIVERSIFIED TECHNOLOGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMPANY FOCUSED ON TELECOM AND P OWER. THE GROUP HOLDING STRUCTURE WAS SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING AND IS ATTACHED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE II. 2.2.2 IN THE TELECOM SEGMENT, THE APPELLANT IS AN INTEGRATED NETWORK SERVICES PROVIDER (NSP) ENGAGED IN ACTIVITIES LIKE NETWORK, PLANN ING & DESIGN AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, NETWORK DEPLOYMENT, NETWORK OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE, ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND POWER MANAGEMENT. 2.2.3 THERE WERE IMMENSE OPPORTUNITIES DUE TO EXPONENTIAL GROWTH IN TELECOM SECTOR (ESPECIALLY WIRELESS) IN THE YEARS OF INVESTMENT. THE APPELLANT WAS STRATEGICALLY FOCUSING ON PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND SERVICE ASPECTS AND WAS ACTIVELY PURSUING OPERATIONS &MAINTENANCE AS A FUTURE FOCUS. 9 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. 2.2.4 THE APPELLANT HAS TRACK RECORD & EXPERTISE INTO BUILDING WIRELESS TELECOM NETWORKS GAVE IT A UNIQUE ADVANTAGE FOR DIVERSIFYING INTO WIRELESS PASSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISIONING AND MANAGEMENT. THE APPELLANT PLANNED TO ENTER THE BUSINESS OF INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISIONING AND MANAGEMENT IN INDIA WHEREIN IT WOULD PROVIDE PASSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE TO CELLULAR OPERATORS, BROADCAST COMPANIES AND WIRELESS BROADBAND AS WELL AS PRIVATE RADIO OPERATORS. THIS WAS DONE THROUGH AN INVESTMENT IN GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ('GIL') AND CHENNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED. 2.2.5 AS WITH GIL, THE INVESTMENT IN CNIL WOULD ALSO HELP TO INCREASE THE COMPANY'S REVENUE BY PROVIDING OPERATIONS AND MAINTAINENCE SERVICES FOR PASSIVE TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE UNDERTAKINGS. 2.2.6 THE APPELLANT WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT A MERE GLANCE OF THE INVESTMENT SCHEDULE AT PG 76 OF THE FACTUAL PAPER BOOK ('FPB') OF THE COMPANY WILL REFLECT THAT MAJORITY OF THE INVESTMENTS ARE IN ASSOCIATE COMPANIES, CHENNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ('CNIL') OF 1637 CR AND GTL 10 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ('GIL') OF RS.291.23 CR . IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT CNIL AND GIL ARE MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THE REVENUE OF THE COMPANY AS IS ILLUSTRATED FROM THE TABLE BELOW: ASSOCIATE COMPANY FY 2012 - 13 FY 2011 - 12 FY 2013 - 14 RS. %OF TOTAL REVENU E RS %OF TOTAL REVENUE RS % OF TOTAL REVENUE GTL IN FRASTRUCTURE LIMITED 318.89 14.68 328.62 14.93 327.7 1 14.47 CHENNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED 197.96 9.12 366.33 16.64 287.4 9 12.69 TOTAL 516.85 23.80 694.95 31.57 615.2 27.16 2.2.7 THE AFORESAID REVENUES HAVE BEEN GENERAT ED FROM ENERGY MANAGEMENT AND POWER MANAGEMENT SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT TO GIL AND CNIL. 2.2.8 FROM THE FOREGOING FACTS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS CLEARLY MADE WITH A COMMERCIAL RATIONALE IN ORDER TO BOOST THE APPELLANT'S OWN REVENU ES AND EVEN THOUGH PURPORTEDLY BORROWINGS WERE UTILISED FOR SUCH INVESTMENTS, THEY HAVE ONLY RESULTED IN ENHANCING THE REVENUES OF THE COMPANY. 11 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. 2.2.9 THE APPELLANT WOULD LIKE TO BRING ATTENTION TO SECTION 36(L)(III) OF THE ACT, WHICH READS AS UNDER: '36( 1) - THE DEDUCTIONS PROVIDED FOR IN THE FOLIO - WING CLAUSES SHALL BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF THE MATTERS DEALT WITH THEREIN, IN COMPUTING THE INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 28: - (III) THE AMOUNT OF THE INTEREST PAID IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL BORROWED FOR THE PURPO SES OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION :' 2.2.10 SECTION 36(L)(III) OF THE ACT ENVISAGES THE FULFILMENT OF THE FOLLOWING THREE CONDITIONS BEFORE INTEREST CAN BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION: - 1. THERE SHOULD BE A BORROWING OF CAPITAL; 2. CAPITAL MUST HAVE BEEN BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AND 3. INTEREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID OR PAYABLE IN RESPECT THEREOF '2.2. 11 IN THIS REGARD, ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN CASE OF S.A. BUILDERS V. CIT (288 ITR 1) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED FUNDS FROM A BANK AND LENT A PART OF IT TO ITS SUBSIDIARY AS AN INTEREST FREE LOAN, THE 12 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. TEST TO BE APPLIED FOR ALLOWABILITY OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS WHETHER IT WAS A MATTER OF 'COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY'. 2.2.12 THUS, THE DECISIVE TEST IS THE 'PURPOSE' FOR WHICH THE BORROWING IS UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND IF SUCH PURPOSE SATISFIES THE TEST OF 'COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY', THE EXPENDITURE RELATED THERETO WOULD BE ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. 2.2.13 IN THE IM PUGNED ORDER, IT IS ALLEGED THAT BORROWED FUNDS WERE UTILISED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN ASSOCIATE COMPANIES. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FOREGOING FACTS THAT THESE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE FOR THE VERY PURPOSE OF EARNING SUBSTANTIAL OPERATIONAL BUSINESS AND REVENUE FROM THEM. THE TABLE ABOVE ALSO ILLUSTRATES THAT THIS VERY DECISION OF THE COMPANY IS ABSOLUTELY JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE REVENUES RECEIVED FROM THESE COMPANIES. 2 .16 THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, PRAYS THAT INTEREST INCURRED AMOUNTING TO RS. 230.91 CRORES ON THE FUND I UTILIZED WHOLLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U/S. 36(L)(III) OF THE ACT. 2.3 SUBMISSIONS ON SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A); 13 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. A. THE LD.CIT(A) IN PARA 6.3.1 OF HIS ORDER HAS STATED THAT IS THERE IS NO COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE. HOWEVER THIS STATEMENT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT AS EXPLAINED HEREUNDER: THE APPELLANT VIDE SUBMISSION DATED JUNE 22, 2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ( REFER PG.75 OF FPB) HAD EXPLAINED THE COMMERCIAL RATIONALE OF MAKING INVESTMENTS IN IT'S GROUP COMPANIES CHENNAI NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ('CNIL') OF 1637 CR AND GTL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED ('GIL') OF RS.291.23 CR. THE APPELLANT ALSO VIDE A DIAGRAMMATICAL REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE BENCH EXPLAINED THE SHAREHOLDING OF THE GLOBAL GROUP AND HOW ALONG WITH IT'S FLAGSHIP COMPANY GLOBAL HOLDING CORPORATION PVT. LTD('GHC'), THE APPELLANT SUBSTANTIALLY CONTROLLED BOTH GIL AS WELL AS CNIL. WHEREAS GIL WAS GLOBAL GROUP'S OWN COMPANY WHICH WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF PASSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE, CNIL WAS ACQUIRED FROM THE AIRCEL GROUP UNDER A BUSINESS PURCHASE AGREEMENT. WHILE GTL AS WELL AS GIL ARE PUBLIC LISTED COMPANIES, CNIL WAS A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY. THE APPELLANT ALSO EXPLAINED IT'S BUSINESS AND THE BUSINESS OF GIL AS WELL AS CNIL AND HOW THE SAME 14 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. WERE INTRINSICALLY LINKED TO EACH OTHER. BOTH GIL AND CNIL ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING PASSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE TO TELECOM TOWERS WHEREAS THE APPELLANT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR PASSIVE TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE UNDERTAKINGS. THE APPELLANT HAD EXPLAINED THAT BOTH CNIL AND GIL ARE MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THE REVENUE OF THE COMPANY AND HAD CONTRIBUTED TO 23% OF THE TOTAL REVENUE OF THE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. A CHART REFLECTING THE GROWTH IN REVENUES IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE HON 'BLE BENCH. THE INCOME FROM THE CNIL AS WELL AS GIL WAS REFLECTED UNDER 'REVENUE FROM ENERGY MANAGEMENT BUSINESS' IN THE FINANCIALS OF THE APPELLANT AT PG 20 OF THE FPB. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL REVENUE OF RS.2171 CRORES IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, 'REVENUE FROM ENERGY MANAGEMENT BUSINESS' ACCOUNTED FOR 1029.50 CRORES OUT OF WHICH 517 CRORES WERE CONTRIBUTED BY CNIL AND GIL. T HEREFORE, CNIL AND GIL HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO 50% OUT OF THE TOTAL REVENUE FROM ENERGY MANAGEMENT BUSINESS. THUS, IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS NO COMMERCIAL 15 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. EXPEDIENCY OR RATIONALE FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS IN GIL OR CNIL IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND , LD. DR BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) A ND HE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT (A). 12. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE NOTICE THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2639.75 CRORES AND ASSESSEE WAS HAVING OWN FUNDS OF RS. 1296.65 CRORES. SIN CE THERE IS H UGE GAP BETWEEN TOTAL INVESTMENT AND OWN FUNDS, LEARNED CIT (A) REDUCE D THE INTEREST CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS FINANCIAL STATEMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 230.91 CRORES. THE LD. CIT(A) VERIFIED THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ALONGWITH OTHER SISTER CONCERNS AND OBSERVED THAT THE SISTER CONCERNS HAVE INVESTED IN CAPITAL ASSETS AND MUTUAL FUNDS AND NO T UTILIZED THE SAME IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES. T HEREFORE , HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM INTEREST EXPENDITURE. 13. WE NOTICE FROM THE STRUCTURE OF THE GROUP CONCERN IN WHICH ASSESSEE ITSELF A SUBSIDIARY OF GLOBAL HOLDIN G CORPORATION 16 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. PRIVATE LIMITED A ND ASSESSEE IS HOLDING SHARES OF G I L AND CNIL INTERN GI L HOLDING SHARES HUNDRED PERCENT IN TOWER TRUST IN TURN TOWER T RUST HOLDING CONSIDERABLE SHARES IN CNIL. IN SUMMARY , AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31 .03 . 2013 , ASSESSE E WAS HOLDING SHARES IN GIL 7.38%, IN CNIL 27.02% AND TOWER TRUST HOLDING 28.04% IN CNIL THEREFORE ALL THESE COMPANIES ARE INDI RECTLY SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES OF GLOBAL H OLDING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED. 14. THE DEFINITION OF SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES ARE, AS PER SECTION 2(87) OF COMPANIES ACT 2013, W H ICH COMPRISES OF TWO PARTS, ONE WHICH CONTROLS THE COMPOSITION OF DIRECTORS AND TWO, W HICH HOLDS OR CONTROLS MORE THAN HALF OF THE SHARES ON ITS OWN OR WITH OTHER COMPANIES. FROM THE ABOVE DEFINITION AND THE COMPOSIT ION OF THE GROUP COMPANIES , WE CAN SEE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS HOLDING SUBSTANTI AL SHAREHOLDING AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE SET UP OF THE GROUP COMPANIES , WE CAN SEE THAT GLOBAL H OLDING COMPANY CONTROLS THE WHOLE GROUP CONCERNS WHICH INCLUDES ASSESSEE CO MPANY . THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALSO UNDER CONTROL OF GLOBAL HOLDING. A SSESSEE COMPANIES INVEST IN OTHER GROUP 17 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. COMPANIES IN WHICH HOLDING COMPANY CONTROLS THE MAJORS SHARES AS WELL AS CONTROLS COMPOSITION OF DIRECTORS. THEREFORE , WE CAN SAY THAT THE COMPANIES G IL AND CNIL ARE SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES, WHICH C LEARLY INDICATES THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN OTHER SISTER CONCERNS RATHER WE CAN SAY SUBSIDI ARY COMPANIES ARE MEANT TO BE FO R COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY AND COMMERCIAL NECESSITY. THEREFORE , I N OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE COMPANIES ARE FOR COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY AND WE ALSO NOTE THAT APART FROM IT IS HOLDING SUBSTANTIAL SHARES AND WE ALSO NOTICE THAT SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THEIR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES ARE SOUR CED THROUGH THE SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES. THEREFORE , IT IS A COMPOSITE INVESTMENT DECISION FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OVERALL GROUP CONCERNS. IN OUR VIEW , THESE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WILL FALL WITHIN THE TERM BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY /COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY E XPRESSED BY THE HONBLE APEX C OURT IN ITS LANDMARK JUDGEMENT OF S. A. BUILDERS (SUPRA) . THEREFORE , THE IN VESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FOR ITS COMMERCIAL PURPOSES HENCE THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSES SEE ON 18 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. ITS SUBSIDIARY COMPANY ARE ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 37 (1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE , WE ARE INCLINED TO ALLOW THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSE ARE ALLOWED. 15. WITH REGARD TO ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE, SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY ALLOWED THE MAIN GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL, THEREFORE THESE GROUNDS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND ARE DISMISSED. 16. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 937/MUM/2019 (AY 2013 - 14 ) 17 . NOW WE TAKE UP ITA NO. 937 /MUM /2019 FOR AY 2013 - 14 FILED BY THE REVENUE. 18 . AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTICE THAT THE TAX EFFECT OF THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS BELOW RS. 50 LACS AND AS PER CIRCULAR NO.17 OF 2019 DATED 08.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES (CBDT), DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THE CBDT HAS REVISED THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING APPEALS 19 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. BEFORE THE ITAT FROM THE EXISTING LIMIT OF RS. 20 LACS TO RS. 50 LACS. 19 . THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THIS APPEAL IS COVERED BY THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE THIS APPEAL FALLS IN THE EXCEPTIONAL CASE, THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED TO RECALL. 20 . CONSIDERE D THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE ABOVE REFERRED APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS. 50 LACS. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE AFORESAID APPEAL FILED BY THE R EVENUE AS NOT MAINTAINABLE . 21. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL FI LED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. CROSS OBJECTION (CO) NO. 192/MUM/2019 (AY 2013 - 14) 22. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF REVENUE FILED IN ITA NO. 937/MUM/2019 FOR AY 2013 - 13, THEREFORE THE PRESENT CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECO MES INFRUCTUOUS AS DISMISSED. 20 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. 23 . IN THE NET RESULT, T HE APPEA L FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF REVENUE AND CO OF ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED . 2 4. 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 ALLOWIN G 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 GOVERNMENT WAS IN FORCE. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID BINDING PRECEDENT ARE AS UNDE R: - 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 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 : 21 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. (A) THE BENCH MAY PRONOUNCE THE ORDER IMMEDIATELY UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. (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 WHE RE 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 EXCE PTIONAL 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 NOTICE OF THE DAY SO FIXED SHALL BE GIVEN ON THE NOTICE BOARD. 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 THE EXPRESSION O RDINARILY 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, DIR ECTED 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 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 FOLLOWED STRICTLY BY ALL THE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE M EANWHILE ( 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 JUDGMENT . IN THE R ULED 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, 22 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. BEYOND NINETY DAYS, WAS NECESSI TATED 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 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT MUMBAI WAS SEVERELY RESTRICTED ON ACCOUNT OF LOCKDOWN B Y 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 THE FUNCTIONING OF JUDICIAL MACHINERY, THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, IN AN UNPRECEDEN TED 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 LIMI TATION 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 LIFT ING 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 CONT INUE 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 SHOULD BE CONSIDER ED 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 23 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. 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 LIGHT OF THE DIS CUSSIONS ABOVE, THE PERIOD DURING WHICH LOCKDOWN WAS IN FORCE CAN BE ANYTHING BUT AN ORDINARY PERIOD. 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 PRONOUNCEMENT O F 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 REQUIRED TO INTE RPRETED. 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 UNPRECEDENTED DISRUPTIO N 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 PRES ENT 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 2020 CONTINUES TO OPERATE SHALL 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 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 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 O F 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 24 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. NINETY DAYS, CLEARLY COME S 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 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 EXERCISE WAS REQUIRED TO BE CARRIED OUT ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 11. TO SUM UP, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED, AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED UNDER RULE 34(4) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1962, BY PLACING THE DETAILS ON THE NOTICE BOARD. 2 5 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, WE PROCEED TO PRONOUNCE THIS ORDER BEYOND A PER IOD OF 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF CONCLUSION OF HEARING. 26 ORDER PRONOUNCED AS PER RULE 34(5) OF ITAT RULES AND BY PLACING THE PRONOUNCEMENT LIST IN THE NOTICE BOAR D ON 15.06.2020 . SD/ - SD/ - (PAWAN SINGH ) ( S. RIFAUR RAHMAN ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 15.06 .2020 SR.PS. DHANANJAY 25 I.T.A. NO. 588 & 937/MUM/2019 & CO NO. 192/MUM/2019 GTL LTD. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPO NDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, . / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT , MUMBAI