AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 85
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of appeal: 1. Order u/s.250 Dt.13.03.2018 being erroneous, unlawful and without considering facts on record and submission properly be cancelled and set aside. 2. Disallowance of interest claimed Rs. 17,20,954/- u/s.36(l)(iii) of the Act sustained being unjudicious, not considering facts and improper be deleted. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 5, Ahmedabad has erred in not considering that (a) Advances are made free of interest in the course of business. (b) It is in the nature of current advance and not deposit. (c) No nexus as to borrowing on interest and advances free of interest. (d) Advances being interest free, there is no accrual of interest materia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i) of the Act. Thus the AO worked out the average cost of the assessee on the money borrowed by him at Rs. 11.45 %. Accordingly he worked out the amount of interest which needs to be disallowed at Rs. 17,20,954/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A) who confirmed the order of the AO. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 49 and contended that the rate of interest worked out by the AO at 11.45 % is incorrect. As per the learned AR the correct rate of interest worked out at 8.73% on the amount diverted as interest-free loans an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the authorities below. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 12. Before we part with the issue/appeal as discussed above, it is pertinent to note that the clause (c) of rule 34 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963 requires the bench to make endeavour to pronounce the order within 60 days from the conclusion of the hearing. However the period of 60 days can be extended under exceptional circumstances but the same should not ordinarily be further extended beyond another 30 days. In simple words the total time available to the Bench is of 90 days upon the conclusion of the hearing. However, during the prevailing circumstances where the entire world is facing the unprecedented challenge of Covid 2019 outbreak, resulti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 15.03.2020 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 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 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 interpreted. 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 disruption in the functioning of our justice delivery system. Undoubtedly, in the case of Otters Club Vs DIT [(2017) 392 ITR 244 (Bom)], Hon'ble Bombay High Court did not approve an order being passed by the Tribunal beyond a period of 90 days, but then in the present situation....