J. B. BODA REINSURANCE BROKERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. ACIT - 1(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6194/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8876 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS SAMATHA MULLAMUDI
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKUNJ GADA
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Rule 8D
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT& MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 6194/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) J.B. BODA REINSURANCE BROKERS PVT. LTD. MAKER BHAVAN, 1, SIR V T MARG, MUMBAI-400020 VS. ASST. CIT 1(2)(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI [ PAN NO. AAB CJ2 372 E ] ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NIKUNJ GADA, AR RESPONDENT BY : MRS. SAMATHA MULLAMUDI, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 06.01.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28. 0 7 . 20 20 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2018 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 2, MUMBAI ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATE D 30.11.2006 PASSED BY THE ACIT, CIR-1 (2)(1), MUMBAI UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS TO THE ACT ) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE CASE IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSULTANCY OF INSURANCE S AND RISK MANAGEMENT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2014 -15 ON 29.11.2014 ITA NO.6194/MUM/2018 J.B. BODA REINSURANCE BROKERS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 2 - DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 36,39,62,800/- WHICH WAS SCRUTINIZED AND ULTIMATELY COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE AC T, WITH AN ADDITION OF RS. 17,72,201/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SE CTION 14A OF THE ACT. THE SAME WAS, IN TURN, RESTRICTED TO RS. 12,61,787/ - BY THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND WE HAVE PERUSED TH E RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT APPEARS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDING IT WAS FOUND THAT THE AVERAGE VALUE OF THE TAX FREE INVEST MENT WAS OF RS. 25,23,57,489/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED DIVIDEND I NCOME RS. 95,17,274/-. THE ASSESSEE INCURRED AN EXPENDITURE TOWARDS THE DEMAND CHARGES OF RS. 1,685/- AND ADMINISTRATIVE COST OF R S. 5,000/- WHICH WAS SUO MOTO DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS EXPLAINED THAT IT HAS INVESTMENT FROM ITS OWN FUNDS AND HAS NOT INCURRED ANY INTEREST EXPENDITURE TO MAKE SUCH INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS AND SHARES BY WAY OF BORROWING. THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE REVENUE WAS THIS THAT RULE 8D CAN ONLY BE INVOKED W HEN IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE AO TO WORK OUT THE DISALLOWANCE CO RRECTLY HAVING REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN ASSUMING DIS ALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE, THE SAME CAN BE DONE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INV ESTMENT FROM WHICH ONLY EXEMPT INCOME YIELDED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION. IN THIS REGARD, BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE JUDG MENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. VIREET INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. [2017] 82 TAXMANN.COM 415 (DELHI TRIB.) (SB). HO WEVER, SUCH PLEA OF ITA NO.6194/MUM/2018 J.B. BODA REINSURANCE BROKERS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 3 - THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE LD. AO AND HAVING BEEN NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ASSESSEE S EXPENDITURE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INC OME, THE AO DETERMINED THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 8D OF THE ACT. THE LD. AO HAS APPLIED BOTH RULE 8D(2)(I), RU LE 8D(2)(II) AND RULE 8D(2)(III) AND COMPUTED DIRECT EXPENSES ATTRIB UTABLE, EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF INTEREST AND 0.5% OF AVERAGE INVESTMENTS RESPECTIVELY. THE DIRECT EXPENSES HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AT RS. 1,685/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEMAT CHARGES. THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY WAY OF INTERE ST IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 5,15,414/- INVOKING RULE 8D(2)(II) AND 0.5% OF THE AVERAGE INVESTMENT UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) HAS BEEN COMPUTED AT RS. 12,6 1,787/- WHICH WAS UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE US. AS IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THIS PARTICULAR ADDITION HE HAS OBSERVED THAT UPON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROCEEDING AND THE JUDICIAL PR ONOUNCEMENTS THE LD. AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,61,787/- UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III). THE TOTAL QUANTUM OF EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MUCH HIGHER THAN THAT OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. AO AND REL YING UPON THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT THE LD. AO HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE TUNE O F RS. 1,685/- AND RS. 12,61,787/- ON ACCOUNT OF RULE 8D(2)(I) & 8D(2)(III ). IN THIS RESPECT WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE J UDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE DELHI BENCH IN THE MATTER OF ACIT VS . VIREET INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, W E FIND THAT THE RATIO ITA NO.6194/MUM/2018 J.B. BODA REINSURANCE BROKERS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 4 - LAID DOWN IN THE SAID JUDGMENT HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWE D IN ITS TRUE SPIRIT. AS WE FIND THAT WHILE MAKING ADDITION OF .5% OF THE AVERAGE INVESTMENT UNDER RULE 8D(2)(III) THE LD. AO CONSIDERED THE ENT IRE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF ONLY THOSE INVESTMENT WH ICH YIELDED EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE YEAR. THUS, HAVING REGARD TO THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL BY RESTORING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR RE-COMPUTING THE DISA LLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF INVESTMENT WHICH YIE LDED EXEMPT INCOME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS OBSERVED BY US H EREINABOVE. ASSESSEES APPEAL IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSE. 4. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 5. BEFORE PARTING WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE CERTAIN OBS ERVATION RELATING TO THE ISSUE CROPPED UP UNDER PRESENT SCENARIO AS TO W HETHER WHEN THE HEARING OF THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED ON 06.01.2020 THE ORDER CAN BE PRONOUNCED TODAY I.E. ON 22.07.2020. THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BE EN DISCUSSED BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. JSW LTD. (IT A NOS. 6264 & 6103/MUM/2018) PRONOUNCED ON 14.05.2020 IN THE LIGH T OF WHICH IT IS WELL WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PERMITTED UNDER RULE 34(5) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS M ADE THEREIN: 7. HOWEVER, BEFORE WE PART WITH THE MATTER, WE MUS T DEAL WITH ONE PROCEDURAL ISSUE AS WELL. WHILE HEARING OF THESE A PPEALS WAS CONCLUDED ON 8 TH JANUARY 2020, THIS ORDER THEREON IS BEING PRONOUNCE D TODAY ON THE DAY OF 14 TH MAY, 2020, MUCH AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 90 DAYS FROM TH E DATE OF CONCLUSION OF HEARING. WE ARE ALSO ALIVE TO THE FACT THAT RULE 34 (5) OF THE INCOME TAX ITA NO.6194/MUM/2018 J.B. BODA REINSURANCE BROKERS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 5 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES 1963, WHICH DEALS WITH PRO NOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: (5) THE PRONOUNCEMENT MAY BE IN ANY OF THE FOLLOWIN G MANNERS : (A) THE BENCH MAY PRONOUNCE THE ORDER IM MEDIATELY UPON THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. (B) IN CASE WHERE THE ORDER IS NOT PRONO UNCED IMMEDIATELY ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING, THE BENCH SHALL GIVE A DATE FOR PRO NOUNCEMENT. (C) IN A CASE WHERE NO DATE OF PRONOUNCE MENT IS GIVEN BY THE BENCH, EVERY ENDEAVOUR SHALL BE MADE BY THE BENCH TO PRONOUNCE T HE ORDER WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE HEARING OF THE CASE WAS CONCL UDED BUT, WHERE IT IS NOT PRACTICABLE SO TO DO ON THE GROUND OF EXCEPTIONAL A ND EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE BENCH SHALL FIX A FUTURE DAY FOR PRON OUNCEMENT 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 FIXE D SHALL BE GIVEN ON THE NOTICE BOARD. 8. QUITE CLEARLY, ORDINARILY THE ORDER ON AN APPE AL SHOULD BE PRONOUNCED BY THE BENCH WITHIN NO MORE THAN 90 DAYS FROM THE D ATE 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 I NSERTED 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 APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL TO FRAME AND LAY DOWN THE GUIDELINES IN TH E 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 BE NCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT BEHALF. WE HOPE AND TRUST THAT SUITABLE GUIDE LINES SHALL BE FRAMED AND ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUN AL WITHIN SHORTEST REASONABLE TIME AND FOLLOWED STRICTLY BY ALL THE BE NCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE MEANWHILE (EMPHASIS, BY UNDERLINING, SUPPLIED BY US NOW) , ALL THE ITA NO.6194/MUM/2018 J.B. BODA REINSURANCE BROKERS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 6 - REVISIONAL AND APPELLATE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE INCO ME-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 RULED SO FRAMED, AS A RESULT OF THESE DIRECTIONS, THE EXPRESSION ORDINARILY HAS BEEN IN SERTED 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 DA YS, WAS NECESSITATED BY ANY EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. 9. LET US IN THIS LIGHT REVERT TO THE PREVAILING SI TUATION IN THE COUNTRY. ON 24TH MARCH, 2020, HONBLE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA T OOK THE BOLD STEP OF IMPOSING A NATIONWIDE LOCKDOWN, FOR 21 DAYS, TO PRE VENT 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 SEVEREL Y RESTRICTED ON ACCOUNT OF LOCKDOWN BY THE MAHARASHTRA GOVERNMENT, AND ON A CCOUNT OF STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF HEALTH ADVISORIES WITH A VIEW OF CHE CKING SPREAD OF COVID 19. THE EPIDEMIC SITUATION IN MUMBAI BEING GRAVE, THERE WAS NOT MUCH OF A RELAXATION IN SUBSEQUENT LOCKDOWNS ALSO. IN ANY CAS E, 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 I NDIA, 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 15.03.202 0 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 15DAYS AFT ER THE LIFTING OF ITA NO.6194/MUM/2018 J.B. BODA REINSURANCE BROKERS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 7 - 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 FO R 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 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, V IDE NOTIFICATION DATED 19 TH FEBRUARY 2020, TAKEN THE STAND THAT, THE CORONA VIR US SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A CASE OF NATURAL CALAMITY AND FMC ( I.E. FORCE MAJEURE CLAUSE) MAY BE INVOKED, WHEREVER CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE, FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCEDURE. THE TERM FORCE MAJEURE HAS BEEN DEFINED IN BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, AS AN EVENT OR EFFECT THAT CAN BE NEITHER ANTICIPATED NOR CONTROLL ED WHEN SUCH IS THE POSITION, AND IT IS OFFICIALLY SO NOTIFIED BY THE G OVERNMENT OF INDIA AND THE COVID-19 EPIDEMIC HAS BEEN NOTIFIED AS A DISASTER U NDER 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 AN YTHING BUT AN ORDINARY PERIOD. 10. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT RATHER THAN TAKING A PEDANTIC VIEW OF THE RULE REQU IRING PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS WITHIN 90 DAYS, DISREGARDING THE IMPORTANT F ACT 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 F ORCE. WE MUST FACTOR GROUND REALITIES IN MIND WHILE INTERPRETING THE TIM E LIMIT FOR THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER. LAW IS NOT BROODING OMN IPOTENCE IN THE SKY. IT IS ITA NO.6194/MUM/2018 J.B. BODA REINSURANCE BROKERS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 8 - 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 REQ UIRED TO INTERPRETED. THE INTERPRETATION SO ASSIGNED BY US IS NOT ONLY IN CON SONANCE WITH THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF RULE 34(5) BUT IS ALSO A PRAGMATIC APPROA CH AT A TIME WHEN A DISASTER, NOTIFIED UNDER THE DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT 2005, IS CAUSING UNPRECEDENTED DISRUPTION IN THE FUNCTIONING OF OUR JUSTICE DELIVE RY 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 PA SSED 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 TIME- BOUND BY THIS COURT, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH 2020 CONTINUES TO OPERATE SHALL BE ADDED AND TIME S HALL 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 C ONSIDERED VIEW, EVEN WITHOUT THE WORDS ORDINARILY, IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE A NALYSIS OF THE LEGAL POSITION, THE PERIOD DURING WHICH 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 PRONO UNCEMENT 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 B ENCHES TO REFIX THE MATTERS FOR CLARIFICATIONS BECAUSE OF CONSIDERABLE TIME LAG BET WEEN THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE HEARING IS CONCLUDED AND THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE ORDER THEREON IS BEING ITA NO.6194/MUM/2018 J.B. BODA REINSURANCE BROKERS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2014-15 - 9 - FINALIZED, BUT THEN, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NO SUC H EXERCISE WAS REQUIRED TO BE CARRIED OUT ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 6. ON THE BASIS OF THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE AFOR ESAID JUDGMENT WE EXCLUDE THE PERIOD OF LOCKDOWN WHILE COMPUTING THE LIMITATION PROVIDED UNDER RULE 34(5) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBU NAL) RULE 1963. ORDER IS, THUS, PRONOUNCED UNDER RULE 34(4) OF THE SAID R ULE BY PLACING THE DETAILS ON THE NOTICE BOARD. 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28/07/2020 SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (MADHUMITA ROY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 28/07/2020 TANMAY, SR. PS E / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. DATE OF DICTATION 19.03.2020 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19.03.2020 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S .03.2020 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .03.2020 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S .03.2020 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .03.2020 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE