PIRAMAL GLASS PRIVATE LTD(EARLIER KNOWN AS PIRAMAL GLASS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(3)(2), MUMBAI

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण मुंबई पीठ “जे ”, मुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI �ी �वकास अव�थी, �या�यक सद�य एवं �ी नबीन कुमार �धान, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N.K.PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं. 556/मुं/2018 (�न.व. 2013-14) ITA NO.556/MUM/2018 (A.Y.2013-14)

Piramal Glass Private Limited, (Earlier Known as Piramal Glass Ltd) Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 PAN: AABCG0093R ...... अपीलाथ� /Appellant

बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax-7(3)(2), Room No.623, 6th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ��तवाद�/Respondent

अपीलाथ� �वारा/ Appellant by : Shri Ronak G. Doshi with Shri Hardik Nirmal ��तवाद� �वारा/Respondent by : Shri A. Mohan सुनवाई क� �त�थ/ Date of hearing : 22/01/2020 घोषणा क� �त�थ/ Date of pronouncement : 22/06/2020 आदेश/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against assessment order dated 28/11/2017 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2013-14.

2 ITA NO.556/MUM/2018(A.Y.2013-14)

3 ITA NO.556/MUM/2018(A.Y.2013-14)

GROUND I: DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON NON-COMPETE FEES PAID AND ALLOCATED OVER VARIOUS FIXED ASSETS TAKEN OVER ON SLUMP SALE BASIS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND I: GROUND II: DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION @ 25% CLAIMED ON NON – COMPETE FEES. 4.1 The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee fairly stated that the issue raised in ground No. I was decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in preceding assessment years i.e. AY 1999-2000,2001-02, 2005-6, 2006-07, 2007-08 to 2009-10 and assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee furnished copy of the Tribunal orders for the above assessment years.

In respect of ground of appeal No.II, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that initially in assessment year 1999-2000, this issue was decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in ITA No.4842/Mum/2004 decided on 05/04/2004, however, in assessment year 2001-02 the claim of the assessee was allowed. The Revenue carried the issue in appeal before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Income Tax Appeal No.556 of 2017 titled PCIT vs. Piramal Glass Ltd. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 11/06/2019 dismissed the appeal of Revenue. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that the Tribunal in a recent decision in IT(TP)A No.3046/Mum/2017 for assessment year 2012-13 decided on 07/06/2019 allowed depreciation on Non-compete Fee @25%.

4.1.1 The grounds No.I and II of the appeal are taken up together for adjudication as they are connected to each other. In ground No.II of the appeal, the assesse has taken an alternate plea to the issue raised in ground

4 ITA NO.556/MUM/2018(A.Y.2013-14)

No.I of the appeal. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee has fairly stated at the Bar that the depreciation on Non-compete Fee paid and allocated over various fixed assets taken over on slump sale basis has been decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in the preceding assessment years. Accordingly, ground No. I of the appeal is dismissed.

4.1.2 In so far as ground No.II is concerned, we find that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in IT(TP)A No.3046/Mum/2017 (supra) has allowed depreciation on Non-compete Fee @25% by considering it as intangible asset. For the sake of completeness, the relevant extract of the findings of Tribunal dealing with assessee’s claim of depreciation on Non-compete Fee is reproduced herein below:-

“6. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. As could be seen, the dispute relating to assessee’s claim of depreciation on non–compete fee is a recurring issue between the parties from the assessment year 1999–2000 onwards. While deciding the issue in Assessment Year 1999–2000 the Tribunal altogether disallowed assessee’s claim of depreciation on both the count i.e., depreciation on allocation of non– compete fee to various fixed assets as well as claim of depreciation by treating non–compete fee as an intangible asset. However, while deciding assessee’s appeal in subsequent years, the Tribunal allowed assessee’s claim of depreciation @ 25% by treating non–compete fee as an intangible asset. In the latest order passed by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2005–06 in ITA no.4777/Mum./2016, dated 30th April 2019, the Tribunal following its earlier order has decided the issue as under:– “8. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. The issue before us is, whether assessee’s claim of depreciation on non–compete fee @ 25% by treating it as an intangible asset is acceptable or not. As could be seen, this is a recurring dispute between the parties since the assessment year 1999–2000. Though, while deciding the issue in the assessment year 1999–2000, vide ITA no.4842/Mum./2004, dated 5th April 2013, the Tribunal has disallowed assessee’s claim of depreciation on non–compete fee by treating it as an intangible asset, however, while deciding assessee’s appeal in assessment year 2001–02 in ITA no. 9645/Mum./2004, dated 2nd March 2016, the Tribunal though was conscious of its own contrary decision in assessment year 1999–2000, however, taking note of the decisions of Hon’ble Madras High Court and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, referred to above, allowed assessee’s claim of depreciation by treating the non– compete fee as an intangible asset. The same view was reiterated by the Tribunal while deciding assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2006–07 in ITA no.5360/ Mum./2010, dated 16th December 2016, and in assessment year 2011–12 in ITA

5 ITA NO.556/MUM/2018(A.Y.2013-14)

no.157/Mum./2011, dated 4th January 2007. Therefore, facts being identical, following the consistent view of the Tribunal in the orders referred to above, as well as the decision of different High Courts cited supra, we uphold the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. Ground is dismissed.” 7. The facts being identical, respectfully following the consistent view of the Tribunal, we direct the A.O. to allow deprecation on non– compete fee @ 25% by treating it as an intangible asset. 8. Thus, ground no.(i) is dismissed and ground no.(ii) is allowed.” The Revenue has not been able to distinguish either on facts or law the findings of Tribunal in allowing depreciation @25% on non-compete fee. In the light of above Tribunal order in assesse’s own case, the ground No. II of the appeal is allowed for parity of reasons.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND I AND II: GROUND III: DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION TO THE EXTENT OF 1/18TH OF NON – COMPETE FEES: 4.2 The ground No.III of the appeal is without prejudice to ground No.I and II. Since we have accepted assessee’s plea in ground No.II, this ground of appeal has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as such.

GROUND IV: DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON ADOPTION OF WRONG ACTUAL COST OF VARIOUS FIXED ASSETS: 4.3 The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that the assessee had allocated lumpsum consideration paid for acquisition of depreciable assets transferred from M/s. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. at the time of acquisition. The assets were transferred at fair market value and the depreciation was claimed on the same. The Assessing Officer disallowed assessee’s claim and treated the transaction as one of amalgamation and took written down value of the transferred assets in the books of transferor company i.e. M/s. Nicholas Piramal as actual cost to the assessee and allowed depreciation accordingly. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee 5

6 ITA NO.556/MUM/2018(A.Y.2013-14)

pointed that similar disallowance of depreciation was made by the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2012-13. The Tribunal after examining the facts restored this issue to the file of Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication.

4.3.1 The ld.Departmental Representative vehemently supported the findings of the Assessing Officer. However, the ld. Departmental Representative submitted that on similar set of facts the issue was restored by the Tribunal to Assessing Officer in assessment year 2012-13.

4.3.2 We have heard both sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. Both sides are unanimous in admitting that the issue raised in the present ground of appeal is identical to the one already adjudicated by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in IT(TP)A No.3046/Mum/2017 (supra). We find that the Co-ordinate Bench has restored this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer after placing reliance on the earlier order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2006-07. The relevant extract of the findings of the Tribunal in AY 2012-13 on this issue reads as under:-

“14. Having considered rival submissions and perused material on record we find, whil e deciding identical issue in the preceding assessment years in assessee’s own case, the Tribunal has restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. In this context, we may refer to the latest order passed by the Tribunal for the assessment year 2006–07 in ITA no.8360/Mum./2010, dated 16th December 2016. Facts being identical, respectfully following the consistent view expressed by the Tribunal in the preceding assessment years, we restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication in terms with the directions of the Tribunal in preceding assessment years. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes.” For the parity of reasons, the issue in ground no. IV of the present appeal is restored back to the file of Assessing Officer with similar directions. The ground No.IV of the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, accordingly.

7 ITA NO.556/MUM/2018(A.Y.2013-14)

GROUND- V: DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST Rs.4,52,59,607/- U/S.36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. 4.4 The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee has made investments in it’s subsidiary companies viz. Ceylon Glass Company Ltd. (Sri Lanka), Gujarat Glass International (USA). The Assessing Officer held that the investments have been made by utilizing borrowed interest bearing funds in the aforesaid subsidiary companies. Further, it was held that the investment is unrelated to the business of assesse. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee contended that since subsidiaries are in same line of business the expenditure is allowable on the basis of commercial expediency. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that similar disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was made by Assessing Officer in assessment year 2012-13. The Tribunal deleted the disallowance by holding that the investment in sister concerns is for the purpose of business. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee further pointed that the issue of disallowance of interest travelled to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in assessee’s own case in Income Tax Appeal No. 556 of 2017 filed by the Department. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court confirmed the findings of Tribunal and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue vide order dated 11-06-2019.

4.4.1 The ld. Departmental Representative fairly admitted that the issue of disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was considered by the Tribunal in assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13(surpa).

4.4.2 Both sides heard, orders of the Authorities below examined. We find that in assessment year 2012-13 disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act was made by the Revenue on identical set of facts. The Co-ordinate Bench 7

8 ITA NO.556/MUM/2018(A.Y.2013-14)

of the Tribunal following the order of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in preceding assessment years deleted the disallowance. For the sake of completeness the relevant extract of the findings of the Tribunal in IT(TP)A No.3046/Mum/2017 (supra) on this issue are reproduced herein below:-

“19. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. As could be seen from the facts available on record, this is a recurring issue between the assessee and the Department from the assessment year 2001–02 onwards. While deciding identical issue in the latest order passed by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2005–06 in appeal filed by the Department being ITA no.4777/Mum./2016, dated 30th April 2019, the Tribunal has upheld the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowing assessee’s claim with the following observations:– “14. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. As could be seen, the Assessing Officer has disallowed a part of interest expenditure on the reasoning that investments made by the assessee in sister concerns are not for the purpose of business. However, it is noticed that while deciding dispute arising out of similar disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment year 2001–02, the Tribunal in ITA no.9645 and 9498/Mum./2004, dated 2nd March 2016, has decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the investment of funds in sister concerns are for the purpose of business. The same view was reiterated by the Tribunal while deciding the issue in assessment year 2006–07, vide ITA no.8360/Mum./2010, dated 16th December 2016, and for the assessment year 2011–12 in ITA no.157/Mum./2016, dated 4th January 2017. Facts being identical, following the consistent view of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case as referred to above, we uphold the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the issue. Ground raised is dismissed.” 20. Facts being identical, respectfully following the decision of the Co–ordinate Bench in the preceding assessment years, we delete the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer.” In view of above findings of the Co-ordinate Bench and the parity of facts in the impugned assessment year, the ground No.V of the appeal is allowed. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the disallowance made under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act .

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND V: GROUND - VI DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF Rs.4,52,59,607 U/S.57(iii) OF THE ACT:

9 ITA NO.556/MUM/2018(A.Y.2013-14)

4.5. the ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee stated at the Bar that in case ground No.V of the appeal is allowed then ground No.VI would become infructuous.

4.5.1 Since we have granted relief to the assessee on ground No.V of the appeal, the ground No.VI of the appeal has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as such.

GROUND- VII: ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNUTILIZED CREDIT FOR CENTRAL VALUE ADDED TAX (“CENVAT”) U/S 145A OF THE ACT AMOUNT TO Rs.1,48,16,181:

4.6 The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had made addition of unutilized CENVAT of Rs.1,48,16,181/- under section 145A of the Act on the ground that the exclusive method followed by the assessee was not in accordance with provisions of section 145A of the Act. The assessee values the opening and closing stock of raw material, stores, spares and packaging material at cost less excise duty and other taxes. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that the assessee is following AS-II for valuation of inventories and the guidance not issued by ICAI for treatment for MODVAT/CENVAT. The adjustment required under section 145A of the Act is reflected in Annexure-III of the tax audit report which shows net impact on the P&L Account as Nil. The DRP has also rejected the method adopted by the assessee. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee has been consistently following this method for valuation of raw material, inventories etc. Similar addition on account of unutilized CENVAT was made in 2012-13.

10 ITA NO.556/MUM/2018(A.Y.2013-14)

The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

4.6.1 The ld. Departmental Representative vehemently supported the assessment order. The ld. DR further submitted that in the immediately preceding assessment year the issue was restored back to the file of Assessing Officer, therefore, in the current assessment year also it can be restored back to the Assessing Officer with similar directions.

4.6.2 We have considered the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the material available on record. We find that the addition on account of unutilized CENVAT credit was made in assessee’s case in assessment year 2012-13 for similar reasons. The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer by observing as under:-

“32. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. Identical issue arose in assessee’s own case in the assessment year 2006–07. The Tribunal while deciding the issue in ITA no.8360/Mum./2010, dated 16th December 2016, has held as under:– “43. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record in the light of the decisions relied upon. On a reading of section 145A of the Act, it is to be noted that as per the said provision, while valuing the opening stock and closing stock further adjustment has to be made to include amount of any tax, duty, cess or fee actually paid / incurred by the assessee to bring the goods to the place of its location and condition as on the date of valuation. It is further relevant to observe, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v/s Mahavir Aluminium Ltd., 168 taxmann.com 27, interpreting the provisions of section 145A has observed that adjustment of closing stock by including tax, cess, or fee cannot be made without making corresponding adjustment to the opening stock. This view has been reiterated in a number of decisions of the Tribunal which the learned Authorised Representative relied upon. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to value the closing stock strictly in terms of section 145A, keeping in view the principle laid down in judicial precedents referred to above and only after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ground no.8 is allowed for statistical purposes.” 33. Facts being identical, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, we restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh in terms with the directions of the Tribunal in assessment year 2006–07.”

11 ITA NO.556/MUM/2018(A.Y.2013-14)

Since the fact in the assessment year under appeal are identical, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue back to the file of Assessing Officer for de- novo adjudication, in line with the order of the Tribunal for assessment year 2012-13. The ground No.VII of the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose.

GROUND NO.VIII: ADDITION TO ARM’S LENGTH PRICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS BASED ON TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER’S ORDER U/S 92CA(3) OF Rs.5,04,90,052:

4.7 The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the ground No.VIII of the appeal is in respect of TP adjustment made on account of corporate guarantee commission Rs.4,56,46,772/- and interest on loan extended to subsidiary Piramal Glass UK ltd. Rs.45,39832/-. In the instant assessment year the assessee suo-motu made adjustment of 0.25% in respect of corporate guarantee. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that both these issues had come up for adjudication before the Tribunal in assessment year 2012-13. The Tribunal directed to charge interest on interest free loans advanced to AE at LIBOR + 200 base points and in respect of corporate guarantee commission the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to compute the same @0.5%.

4.7.1 The ld. Departmental Representative vehemently supported the findings of Assessing Officer/DRP in respect of TP adjustments. However, the ld.Departmental Representative fairly admitted that similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2012-13.

12 ITA NO.556/MUM/2018(A.Y.2013-14)

4.7.2 We have considered the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. We have also considered the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.3046/Mum/2017(supra). We find that in assessment year 2012-13 TP adjustment was made for the similar reasons. The Tribunal decided the issue by holding as under:-

“40. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material on record. As regards the rate at which interest on interest free loan is to be computed, we find that learned DRP has directed the Assessing Officer to compute interest at LIBOR plus 3%. We find that while deciding identical issue in assessee’s own case in assessment year 2007–08 in ITA no.4778/Mum./2016, dated 30th April 2019, the Tribunal has directed to compute interest on interest free loan advanced to the AE at LIBOR plus 200 basis points. Insofar as adjustment on account of corporate guarantee commission is concerned, the Tribunal has directed the Assessing Officer to compute the corporate guarantee fee @ 0.5%. Similar view was expressed by the Tribunal while deciding assessee’s appeal in assessment year 2011–12. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions of the Co– ordinate Bench, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute interest on interest free loan to AE at LIBOR plus 200 basis points and corporate guarantee commission @ 0.5%.” [Emphasised by us] Since there is no change in the facts in the assessment year under appeal, we respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench partly allow ground No.VIII of the appeal in same terms. Therefore, ground No.VIII of the appeal is partly allowed.

GROUND IX: ASSESSING OFFER ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF HON’BLE DRP: WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND IX: GROUND X: DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO Rs.53,680/-

4.8 The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that ground No.IX & X of the appeal are in respect of disallowance made under

13 ITA NO.556/MUM/2018(A.Y.2013-14)

section 14A r.w.r 8D. Both the grounds are without prejudice to each other. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that the DRP had directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of Rs.48,680/-. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee referred to Para 46.1 of the DRP directions. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that while passing the final assessment order the Assessing Officer has not given effect to the directions of the DRP. If the directions of the DRP are given effect, the amount of disallowance would be restricted to Rs.5,000/- only.

4.8.1 The ld. Departmental Representative vehemently supported the assessment order. However, the ld.Departmental Representative submitted that the issue can be restored to Assessing Officer for verification.

4.8.2 Both sides heard. We find that the DRP in para – 46 of the direction has given its findings on the issue. The DRP has directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance of Rs.48,680/-. However, it appears that the Assessing Officer has failed to give effect to with the directions of the DRP on this issue. The ground No.IX & X of the appeal are restored to the Assessing Officer to give effect to the directions of the DRP on the issue of disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D. The grounds No.IX and X are allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid.

GROUND XI: ADDITION OF DISALLOWANCE U/S . 14A FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING BOOK PROFIT U/S . 115JB OF THE ACT: Rs. 53860/-.

4.9 The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has erred in considering disallowance under section 14A of the Act for the purpose of computing profit book profits under section 115JB

14 ITA NO.556/MUM/2018(A.Y.2013-14)

of the Act. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that in view of recent decision of Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd. reported as 188 TTJ 1(Del-Trib)(SB), the computation of book profit under section 115JB are to be made without resorting to computation as contemplated under section 14A r.w.r. 8D.

4.9.1 The ld. Departmental Representative vehemently supported the findings of Assessing Officer and prayed for dismissing this ground of appeal.

4.9.2 Both sides heard. Since we have already restored the issue of disallowance under section 14A r.w.r. 8D to the Assessing Officer for giving effect to the order of DRP, the ground No.XI is also restored back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration in line with the decision of Special Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd.(supra). The ground No.XI of the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

GROUND XII: SHORT GRANT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE (“TDS”) AMOUNTING TO RS.53,942/-

4.10 In ground No.XII, the assessee has assailed the action of Assessing Officer in allowing short credit of TDS by Rs.53,942/-. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the issue can be restored back to the Assessing Officer for verification and grant of TDS credit accordingly.

4.10.1 The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that he has no objection if the issue is restored to Assessing Officer for verification.

4.10.2 The limited issue in groundNo.XII of the appeal is with respect to short grant of TDS. This issue is restored back to Assessing Officer for

15 ITA NO.556/MUM/2018(A.Y.2013-14)

reverification. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow TDS credit as per actual records. The ground of appeal No.XII is allowed for statistical purpose.

GROUND XIII: SHORT GRANT OF INTEREST U/S 244A OF THE ACT:

4.11 In ground No.XIII of the appeal, the assessee has assailed the finding of Assessing Officer in granting short interest under section 244A of the Act. This ground is consequential. Therefore, the same is dismissed.

16 ITA NO.556/MUM/2018(A.Y.2013-14)

pronouncement of orders by the Tribunal and the circumstances leading to lockdown held:- “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 pronouncement of orders within 90 days, disregarding the important fact that the entire country was in lockdown, we should compute the period of 90 days by excluding at least the period during which the lockdown was in force. We must factor ground realities 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 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 inconsonance 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 Hon’ble Bombay High Court itself has, vide judgment dated 15th April 2020, held that directed “while calculating 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 Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court also indicate that this period of lockdown 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 which ITA No. 6103 and 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 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 benches to refix the matters for clarifications because of considerable time lag between 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.”

Thus, in light of above facts and the decision of coordinate Bench, the present order is pronounced beyond the period of 90 days.

17 ITA NO.556/MUM/2018(A.Y.2013-14)

Sd/- Sd/- (N.K.PRADHAN) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

मुंबई/ Mumbai, �दनांक/Dated 22/06/2020 Vm, Sr. PS(O/S) ��त�ल�प अ�े�षतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. ��तवाद�/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अ)/ The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयु�त CIT 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आय.अपी.अ�ध., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाइल/Guard file.

BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai