AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 170
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri Manish Kr Sahoo 3,00,000/- 3,00,000/- 4. Shri Avinash Sahoo 3,50,000/- 3,50,000/- 4. The Assessing Officer accepted the capital introduction in cheques and disallowed the capital introduction of Rs. 60,00,000/- received in cash, which was confirmed in first appeal by the ld CIT(A). 5. Ld A.R. submitted that all the partners who have introduced the amount in assessee firm are assessed to income tax in their individual capacity. He submitted that the names and address, PAN of the partners have been filed before the departmental authorities. He submitted that the partners have disclosed the aforesaid investment in the assessee's firm in their respective income tax returns. The capital introduction is owned by the partners, therefore, the addition cannot be added in the hands of the assessee firm. In support of this, reliance has also been placed on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Metachem Industries, 245 ITR 160 II) CIT vs. Burma Electro Corporation, 252 IT 344 (PH) 6. Replying to above, ld DR supported the orders of lower authorities. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. On careful examination of facts, we are of the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rical maintenance, Rs. 27,94,015/- as lundry expenses, Rs. 10,61,683/- as referral charges, Rs. 9,30,578/- as room service & restaurant and Rs. 3,39,479/- as mandap expenses. He submitted that the Assessing Officer although not doubted the expenses incurred but made adhoc disallowance by disallowing 20% of the expenses, which is not correct and the adhoc addition be deleted,. 11. Replying to above, ld DR submitted that when the assessee was unable to furnish the relevant bills and vouchers and other related documents in support of the claim, the AO was correct in making adhoc disallowance. He submitted that for making the disallowance, the AO has referred several judicial pronouncements as stated in the assessment order. Hence, he urged to confirm the orders of lower authorities. 12. On consideration of the rival submissions, we observe that the assessee has incurred Rs. 92,33,232/- under various heads of expenses and claimed the same as deduction. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to produce the bills and vouchers but the assessee only produced ledger copies of expenses showing the details of expenditure but failed to produce the relevant bills and vouchers. The on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng, the Bench shall give a date of pronouncement. In a case where 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 exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the case, the Bench shall fix a future day for pronouncement of the order, and such date shall not ordinarily 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. As such, "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 "ordinarily" has been used in the said rule itself. This rule was inserted as a result of directions of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant vs ACIT (2009) 319 ITR 433 (Bom), wherein, it was, inter alia, observed as under: " 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 15 days after the lifting of lockdown". Hon'ble 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 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, vide notification dated 19th February 2020, taken the stand that, the coronavirus "should be considered a case of natural calamity and FMC (i.e. force majeure clause) maybe invoked, wherever considered appropriate, following the due procedure...". Th....