TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 620
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tative. It is the further case of the assessee that only upon receiving the order passed by the Ld. Tribunal he could approach the Chartered Accountant for preparation of the appeal before us and ultimately the appeal could be filed on 22.04.2018. Thus, there is an approximate delay of 50 days in preferring the instant appeal. The explanation given by assessee as narrated above seems to be genuine. We do not find any intentional lacks on the part of the assessee. Hence the delay is condoned. ITA No. 1538/Ahd/2018(A.Y. 2013-14):- 3. The assessee has raised the relevant grounds are as under:- "1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal by placing reliance on Notification No 11/2016[F No. 149/150/2015-TPL dated 01/03/2016 and CBDT Circular No 20/2016 dated 26/05/2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not adjudicating ground relating to disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 23,36,125/- u/s 36(1)(iii). 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not adjudicating ground relating to disallowance of delayed payment of Employee's Contribution to Provident Fund amounting to Rs. 3,650/- u/s. 36(1)(va)." Ground N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....knowledge. Since there is a bona fide reasonable cause for not filing the appeal electronically by the assessee, in turn the Co-ordinate Bench has not appreciated the dismissal of appeal made by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. Having regard to the identical fact, in the instant case, we find no reason but to appreciate the difficulty faced by the assessee in preferring such appeal electronically within the prescribed time period and dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) in not considering the same is grossly irregular and arbitrary. Hence, the order of dismissal of the appeal on the ground of limitation by the Ld. CIT(A) as impugned before us is hereby quashed. Ground No. 2:- 7. On merits the assessee has challenged the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 23,36,125/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 8. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the issue is entirely covered by the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 73/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13 in favour of the assessee. The order whereof was also submitted before us. The Ld. DR failed to controvert such submission made by the Ld. AR. 9. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The company had given interest free loans and advances out of interest free funds which consists of capital fund, free reserve, interest free unsecured loans, provisions for deferred tax liabilities created out of surplus and accumulated depreciation reserve created out of profit and trade payable. Details of the same was already provided to the Learned AO. It was further contended that the funds available with the company as on 31.03.2012 was of Rs. 3723.57 lacs out of which interest free advance of Rs. 358.34 lacs i.e. 9.62% of total interest free funds available were given. The balance of Rs. 3365.23 lacs interest free funds were used in business for various fixed assets and movable current assets i.e. Stocks, debtors balance with bank and cash and other assets. It was, therefore, submitted that the interest bearing funds were utilized for other specific purpose and advances given to parties was out of the own funds of the appellant company. Since the interest on borrowed fund is allowable as business expenditure by virtue of income tax provision u/s 36(1)(iii) hence payment made for interest on borrowed fund should be allowed as interest expenses in its totality and interest fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erest free unsecured loans, provision for deferred tax liabilities created out of surplus and accumulated depreciation reserve out of the company had given interest free loan and advances: Fund Amount Share Capital 139320000 Share Application money 500000 Reserve and surplus 25158606 Interest free unsecured loans 8562459 Deferred Tax liabilities Net of 22132121 Depreciation reserve 35395402 Trade payable 141288991 Total 372357579 We have also gone through the other financial details of the assessee company. We find sufficient interest free fund was available with the assessee out of which interest free loan and advances were provided to parties. Whether the decision as to how much is a reasonable expenditure ought to have been decided by the assessee company; the revenue cannot question that once the nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of business has been established as already decided by the number of judgments pronounces by different legal forum including the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-vs-Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason for disallowa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of DCIT vs. JSW Ltd. (ITA Nos. 6264 & 6103/Mum/2018) pronounced on 14.05.2020 in the light 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 made therein: "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 8th January 2020, this order thereon is being pronounced today on the day of 14th 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 :- (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 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, 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 15.03.2020 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". 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 cla....