TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 29.08.2011. Being one of the associate members of the above group, the residential premises was also covered under search and seizure action. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were issued and served upon the assessee. In response, assessee filed relevant information as called for and after considering the detail submission of assessee, AO rejected the contention of assessee and made disallowance. 4. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and made the detail submission before Ld. CIT(A) with respect to addition/disallowance made by the AO, and Ld. CIT(A) considering the submission of assessee, partly allowed the appeal of assessee. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, revenue preferred the appeal before us with the following grounds:- 1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,31,460/- made by the AO on account of deemed let out property without appreciating the facts that flat no. 63 is a distinct and unconnected unit which was earlier the SOP of the assessee and that although the flats numbered 61....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e us that Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,31,460/- made by the AO on account of deemed let out property without appreciating the facts that flat no. 63 is a distinct and unconnected unit which was earlier the SOP of the assessee and that although the flats numbered 61 & 62 are interconnected with each other, the alteration is not approved by the competent authority and therefore the three fiats, together represent three different housing units as they have been named, numbered and purchased as such and supported the findings of AO. 7. On the other hand, Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has made addition on the ground that the assessee is the Owner of Three Properties. Flat No 63 which is owned by him which is considered as self occupied & Flat No 61 & 62 transferred by him in name of his wife otherwise than for adequate consideration and therefore deemed to be owner of two properties in terms of provisions of Section 27(i) of the Income Tax Act and therefore AO proceeded to make addition by treating the other two properties as deemed to be Let Out. 8. He further submitted that assessee is the Owner of Unit No 63, 61 & 62 at Kalpataru Residency Sion. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O has agreed with the documents submitted by assessee that the flat nos. 61, 62, 51 and 52 are combined and having single kitchen and common entrance, therefore, it satisfies the definition of single dwelling unit. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, ground raised by revenue is dismissed. 13. With regard to ground no. 2, Ld. DR submitted that Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,20,000/- made by the AO on account of low withdrawals without appreciating the facts that the assessee's own cash withdrawals including those of the members of his joint family amount to less than Rs. 31,000/- per member per month which cannot be perceived as sufficient for an upper class family residing in Mumbai. 14. He further submitted that Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,20,000/- made by the AO on account of low withdrawals without appreciating the facts that mere cash withdrawals do not necessarily amount to the withdrawn sums being put to household use, without verifying as to whether any money out of the withdrawal has been utilized for the purposes of incurring any business expenditure in the hands of any of the six m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Income Tax Act. 1961. 21. He further submitted that the AO also while passing the Order dated 04.05.2017 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act. 1961 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 on direction of Ld. CIT(Appeal) has already verified the fact that Interest earned on Loan given to Dr. Balkrishna Hedge has direct nexus with Interest earned from MPL and therefore, the same is allowable as deduction u/s 57(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 22. Considered the rival submission and material placed on record. We notice from the record that the assessee has borrowed loan from LIC and from Dr. Balkrishna Hedge. With regard to loan from LIC, we observe that M/s Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd. assigned the keyman insurance policy in favour of assessee alongwith the loan taken against the above policy. The loan is secured with the keyman insurance. Since, it is assigned to assessee, the loan also transferred in the name of assessee and assessee has paid interest on the above loan to the extent of Rs. 29,57,708/- to LIC. This payment of interest is towards the loan assigned in the name of assessee and direct connection with the loan given to the company M/s Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Therefore, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of Ld. CIT(A) in para no. 1 on page 36, which is as under:- "In para 8.7 above, the Interest expense of Rs. 98,05,878/- has been allowed u/s 57(iii) of the Act. Since the Interest expenses allowed are directly attributable to earning of Interest Income from M/s Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd, disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is not required with respect to such expenditure." 28. Considered the rival submission and material placed on record. We notice from the record that AO has invoked provisions u/s 14A and disallowed interest expenditure u/s 8D(2) and not identified any administrative expenses. The interest expenditure incurred by assessee is already established that assessee has financed to his own company and earned interest income. The interest expenditure incurred by assessee is directly linked to the interest income earned during the year and it is not incurred to make investment. Therefore, there is no separate interest expenditure incurred by assessee other than the interest incurred to earn interest income. In our considered view, the findings of Ld. CIT(A) is proper as per the facts. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the findings of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 notordinarily(emphasis 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 noticeboard. 8. Quite clearly, "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 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 Appellate Tribunal to frame and 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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing 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...". The term 'force majeure' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, as 'an event or effect that can be neither anticipated nor controlled' When such is the position, and it is officially so notified by the Government of India and the Covid-19 epidemic has been notified as a disaster under the National Disaster Management Act, 2005, and also in the light of the discussions above, the period duri....