CIMS Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

MA 318/AHD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1536 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Diversion of income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO.318/AHD/2019 (IN ITA NO. 3213/AHD/2016) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) CIMS HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. NR. SHUKAN MALL, OFF SCIENCE CITY ROAD, AHMEDABAD VS. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD [PAN NO. AAB CC6 721 A] ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : MS. URVASHI SODHAN, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL , SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 20/12/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14/12/2020 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THE INSTANT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.09.2019 WHEREBY AND WHEREUNDER T HE GROUND NO. 2 WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPE AL READS AS UNDER:- THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEAL) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,65,40,195/- U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 CONSIDERING IT AS DIVERSION OF INCOME BY THE APPELLANT TO CCCPL AND FROM CCCPL TO CCCPLS DIRECTORS. 2. THE LD. TRIBUNAL WHILE ADJUDICATING THIS GROUND OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 9. IT APPEARS FROM THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT( A) THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH ANY DOCUMENTARY PROOF THAT C CCPL IS HAVING ANY MANPOWER TO CARRY OUT ANY RESEARCH WORK AS MENTIONED IN THE MEM ORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING. THE MOU FURTHER DOES NOT SPECIFY THE TYPE OF RESEARCH W ORK IT WOULD UNDERTAKE. DOCUMENTARY PROOF THAT CCCPL IS COMPETENT TO CARRY OUT RESEARCH WORK AS SPECIFIED BY MOU HAS BEEN FAILED TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE . IT WAS FURTHER FOUND THAT NO ASSET HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE CCCPL IN THEIR BALANCE SHEET FOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT THOUGH THE MOU PARTICULARLY ENVISAGED THAT CCCPL WOULD RENDER AND CONDUCT ALL THEIR HEALTH CARE AND CLINICAL RESEARCH SERVICES AND ENGAGEMENT AT CI MS. THUS IN THE ABSENCE OF - 2 - MA N O.318/AHD/2019(IN ITA NO.3213/A/16) CIMS HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2012-13 NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES TO CARRY OUT RE SEARCH WORK, THE AUTHORITY BELOW HAS DECLINED TO ACCEPT SUCH EXPENDITURE TOWARDS CLINICA L RESEARCH WORK RENDERED BY CCCPL AND, THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT TH E APPELLANT HAS USED THIS MODE TO REDUCE TAX INCIDENCE IN THE APPELLANT COMPANY BY EN TERING INTO MOU OF CCCPL UNEQUIVOCALLY. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT PAS SED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF HEMATO ONCOLOGY CLINIC (AHMEDABAD) (P.) LTD. BUT WE ARE AFRAID, WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY TH E LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE FACT OF THE INS TANT CASE IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE FACT AVAILABLE IN THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT. THUS THIS HAS NO MANNER OF APPLICATION TO THE CASE IN HAND BEFORE US . TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE ASPECT OF THE MATTER, WE FIND THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPENSES SHOWN BY CCCPL INCURRED FOR RESEARCH WORK OR ANY ASSETS TO JUSTIFY SERVICES RENDERED AS RESEARCH WORK, THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A0 IS JUST AND PROPER AND WITHOUT ANY AMBIGUITY IN DISALL OWING THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 2,65,40,195/- DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE AS RESEAR CH EXPENDITURE, PAID TO CCCPL, TREATING THE SAME AS PAPER ENTRY AND/OR BOGUS. HEN CE, ASSESSEES THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 3. AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LD. TRIBUNAL WHILE PASSING FINAL ORDER IN REGARD TO THE GROUND HAS NOT CONSIDE RED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE REBUTTING EVERY CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE TO ALLOW PAYMENT MADE TO CCCPL FOR RENDERING OF SER VICES, THE DETAILS WHEREOF HAS BEEN NARRATED IN THE APPLICATION UNDER CONSIDERATIO N IN PARAGRAPH 3 TO 5 AT PAGE 2 & 3 OF THE SAID APPLICATION. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT NO MACHINERY OR EQUIPMENT BY CCCPL TO CARRY OUT THE RESEARCH ACTIVITIES WAS NECE SSARY SINCE THERE WAS ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE TO CARRY OUT SUCH ACTIVITY BY THE PR OFESSIONAL DOCTORS WHO UNDERTOOK SUCH RESEARCH WORKS AT CIMS. IT IS THE PHARMACEUTI CAL COMPANY WHO IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN LICENSE FOR RESEARCH OF NEW DOCTORS AND NOT THE CCCPL. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASS ESSEE THAT THE DOCTORS OF CCCPL WERE MADE PAYMENT FOR THEIR PROFESSIONAL FEES FOR C ARRYING OUT RESEARCH WORK; SUCH PAYMENT WAS MADE OUT OF THE RECEIVED FROM CIMS IN R ESPECT OF RESEARCH WORK AS IT REFLECTS FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE CC CPL AND, THEREFORE, NO PERMANENT - 3 - MA N O.318/AHD/2019(IN ITA NO.3213/A/16) CIMS HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2012-13 EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED TO BE HIRED BY THE CIMS. APAR T FROM THAT IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE CC CPL WAS NOT FOR DIVERSION OF THE INCOME. THE APPELLANT HAVING HUGE CARRY FORWARD LO SSES OF MORE THAN RS. 51 CRORES AVAILABLE FOR SET OFF AGAINST CURRENT YEAR INCOME P AYMENT FOR RESEARCH WORK CARRIED OUT BY CCCPL AND IN TURN TO DOCTORS, THE DEPARTMENT HAS GOT TAXES BOTH FROM CCCPL AND THE DOCTORS DECLARING INCOME RECEIPT FROM THE A PPELLANT. ON THE BASIS OF THE FACT AVAILABLE IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE LD. SENIOR COUNS EL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF ITO VS. HEMATO ONCOLOGY CLINIC (AHMED ABAD) (P.) (LTD.) [2018] 93 TAXMANN.COM 271 (AHMEDABAD TRIB.). ACCORDINGLY H E SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE JUDGMENT IN IT S PROPER PERSPECTIVE ON THE IDENTICAL FACTS. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS AN E RROR APPARENT OF THE FACE OF THE RECORDS AND HENCE THE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED TO THAT EXTENT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE LD. TRIBUNAL. 4. IT APPEARS THAT APPARENTLY THE DOCUMENTS PLACED BY THE LD. AR REVEALS THE RECEIPT OF PROFESSIONAL FEES OF CCCPL TO THE DOCTOR S FOR CARRYING OUT RESEARCH WORK AND NON-RESEARCH WORK TO PARTICULARLY FROM PAGE 47 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN ITA NO. 3299/AHD/2016 BEING PART OF THE ANNUAL ACCOUNTS WHI CH WAS SOMEHOW MISSED OUT BY THE HONBLE BENCH WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE WHICH IS AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORDS AND THUS FURTHER CONSIDERATION ON THIS ISSUE IS REQUIRED. IT WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT OPEN TO DISREGARD A CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION SAID TO BE DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE PARTICULARLY WHEN BENCHS ATTENTION WAS SPECIFICALL Y DRAWN TO THE SAME. WE, THUS, FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE ARGUMENT ADVANCE BY THE LD. S ENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS, THER EFORE, ALLOWED TO THAT EXTENT. GROUND NO. 2 WILL, THEREFORE, HAVE TO BE ADJUDICATE D AFRESH. - 4 - MA N O.318/AHD/2019(IN ITA NO.3213/A/16) CIMS HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2012-13 5. IN THE RESULT, MISC. APPLICATION IS ALLOWED. 6. BEFORE PARTING WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE CERTAIN OBS ERVATION RELATING TO THE ISSUE CROPPED UP UNDER PRESENT SCENARIO OF COVID-19 PANDE MIC AS TO WHETHER WHEN THE HEARING OF THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED ON 20.12.2020 T HE ORDER CAN BE PRONOUNCED LATE. THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE CO-ORDI NATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. JSW LTD. (ITA NOS. 6264 & 6103/MUM/2018) PRONOU NCED ON 14.05.2020 IN THE LIGHT OF WHICH IT IS WELL WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PER MITTED UNDER RULE 34(5) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 IN VIEW OF THE FOLLO WING OBSERVATIONS MADE THEREIN: 7. HOWEVER, BEFORE WE PART WITH THE MATTER, WE MUS T DEAL WITH ONE PROCEDURAL ISSUE AS WELL. WHILE HEARING OF THESE APPEALS WAS CONCLUDED ON 20TH DECEMBER 2019, THIS ORDER THEREON IS BEING PRONOUNCED TODAY ON THE DAY OF 07 TH DECEMBER, 2020, MUCH AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF C ONCLUSION 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 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 PRONOUNCEM ENT. (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 THE ORDER WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE HEARING OF THE CASE WAS CONCLUDED BUT, WHERE IT IS NOT PRAC TICABLE SO TO DO ON THE GROUND OF EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE BE NCH SHALL FIX A FUTURE DAY FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER, AND SUCH DATE SHALL NOT ORDINARILY (E MPHASIS 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 APPE AL 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 ORD INARILY HAS BEEN USED IN THE SAID - 5 - MA N O.318/AHD/2019(IN ITA NO.3213/A/16) CIMS HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2012-13 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 AN D 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 MEANWHILE(EMPHASIS, BY UNDERLINING, SUPPLIED BY US NOW), ALL THE REVISIONA L 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 RULED SO FRAMED, AS A RESULT OF THESE DIRECTIONS, THE EXPRESSION ORDINARILY HA S 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, BEYOND NINETY DAYS, WAS NECE SSITATED 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 TOOK T HE BOLD STEP OF IMPOSING A NATIONWIDE LOCKDOWN, FOR 21 DAYS, TO PREVENT SPREAD OF COVID 19 EPIDEMIC, AND THIS LOCKDOWN WAS EXTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. AS A MATTE R OF FACT, EVEN BEFORE THIS FORMAL NATIONWIDE LOCKDOWN, THE FUNCTIONING OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT MUMBAI WAS SEVERELY RESTRICTED ON ACCOUNT OF LOCKDO WN BY 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 LOCKDOWN S ALSO. IN ANY CASE, THERE WAS UNPRECEDENTED DISRUPTION OF JUDICIAL WOK ALL OVER T HE COUNTRY. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT - 6 - MA N O.318/AHD/2019(IN ITA NO.3213/A/16) CIMS HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2012-13 HAS BEEN SUCH AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION, CAUSING D ISRUPTION 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 6.5.20 20 READ WITH ORDER DATED 23.3.2020, EXTENDED THE LIMITATION TO EXCLUDE NOT ONLY THIS LO CKDOWN PERIOD BUT ALSO A FEW MORE DAYS PRIOR TO, AND AFTER, THE LOCKDOWN BY OBSERVING THAT IN CASE THE LIMITATION HAS EXPIRED AFTER 15.03.2020 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 15DAYS AFTER THE LIFTING OF LOCKDOWN. HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN AN ORDER DATED 15TH A PRIL 2020, HAS, BESIDES EXTENDING THE VALIDITY OF ALL INTERIM ORDERS, HAS A LSO 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 CO NTINUES TO OPERATE SHALL BE ADDED AND TIME SHALL STAND EXTENDED ACCORDINGLY, AND ALS O OBSERVED THAT ARRANGEMENT CONTINUED BY AN ORDER DATED 26TH MARCH 2020 TILL 30 TH APRIL 2020 SHALL CONTINUE FURTHER TILL 15TH JUNE 2020. IT HAS BEEN AN UNPRE CEDENTED SITUATION NOT ONLY IN INDIA BUT ALL OVER THE WORLD. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA HAS, V IDE NOTIFICATION DATED 19TH 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 CONTROLLED WHEN SUCH IS THE POSITI ON, AND IT IS OFFICIALLY SO NOTIFIED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND THE COVID-19 EPIDEMIC H AS BEEN NOTIFIED AS A DISASTER UNDER THE NATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT, 2005, A ND ALSO IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS ABOVE, THE PERIOD DURING WHICH LOCKDOWN WAS IN FORCE CAN BE ANYTHING BUT AN ORDINARY PERIOD. - 7 - MA N O.318/AHD/2019(IN ITA NO.3213/A/16) CIMS HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2012-13 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 IN CON SONANCE 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. UNDOUB TEDLY, IN THE CASE OF OTTERS CLUB VS DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (BOM)], HONBLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT DID NOT APPROVE AN ORDER BEING PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BEYOND A PERI OD OF 90 DAYS, BUT THEN IN THE PRESENT SITUATION HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ITSELF HAS, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 15TH APRIL 2020, HELD THAT DIRECTED WHILE CALCUL ATING 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 JURIS DICTIONAL 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 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 W HICH 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 PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, INHERENT IN RULE 34(5)(C), WITH RESPECT TO THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS WITHIN - 8 - MA N O.318/AHD/2019(IN ITA NO.3213/A/16) CIMS HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2012-13 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 RE-FIX 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 FINALIZED, BUT THEN, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NO SUCH EXERCISE WAS REQUIRED TO BE CARRIED OUT ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. 7. ON THE BASIS OF THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE AFOR ESAID JUDGMENT WE EXCLUDE THE PERIOD OF LOCKDOWN WHILE COMPUTING THE LIMITATION P ROVIDED UNDER RULE 34(5) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULE 1963. ORDER I S, THUS, PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. 8. IN THE RESULT, MISC. APPLICATION IS ALLOWED. 9. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO PLACE THE MATTER ON BOARD FOR HEARING UPON GIVING NOTICE TO THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14 / 12 /20 20 SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (MS. MADHUMITA ROY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 14/12/2020 TANMAY, SR.PS - 9 - MA N O.318/AHD/2019(IN ITA NO.3213/A/16) CIMS HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2012-13 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A). 5. , ! ' , #$%% / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. &' () / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY // / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !, #$ / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 04/09/2020. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 04/09/2020 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 07/09/2020&03.12.2020&07.12.2020 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S 14 /12/2020 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 14/12/2020 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 ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER