Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

the amount paid to Indian Bank towards settlement of its dues is only an application of income. Hence, the AO has rightly made the addition which is upheld. Accordingly, this ground is dismissed. "

6. Before we proceed further, it is to be stated that this order is being pronounced beyond 90 days from the date of hearing. The hearing of the appeals were concluded on 29th January 2020. There were extraordinary situation prevailing in the country owing to Covid19 disease wherein Government of India announced first National lockdown effective from 25th March 2020. There are further lockdowns announced from time to time by GOI thereafter. The fourth lockdown is announced on 17th May 2020 by GOI which will be effective from 18th May 2020 till 31st May 2020. The State Governments are also announcing their further stringent conditions for implementing these lockdown in their respective states. These lockdowns have crippled the normal functioning of the country. The order is to be pronounced within 90 days from the date of conclusion of hearing and this order is pronounced , much after the expiry of 90 days from the date of conclusion of hearing. Rule 34(5) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 will come into play. Co-ordinate Division Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in DCIT v. JSW Limited in ITA no. 6264/Mum/2018 vide orders dated 14th May 2020 has dealt with the delay in pronouncement of the orders by tribunal in these extraordinary period, by holding as under:

9. Let us in this light revert to the prevailing situation in the country. On 24th March, 2020, Hon'ble Prime Minister of India took the bold step of imposing a nationwide lockdown, for 21 days, to prevent the spread of Covid 19 epidemic, and this lockdown was extended from time to time. As a matter of fact, even before this formal nationwide lockdown, the functioning of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai was severely restricted on account of lockdown 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 ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chny/2012 & :- 22 -:

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 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...". 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 during which lockdown was in force can be anything but an "ordinary" period.

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 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 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 timebound by this ITA Nos.1015 & 1016/Chny/2012 & :- 23 -: