Delay on the part of the Assessee to file an appeal before the CIT(A) pursuant to Notification no. 11/2016 dated 01.03.2016 on account of technical difficulty faced by the Assessee in filing the appeal electronically within the prescribed time limit was condoned by the Tribunal.

Further, the Assessing Officer made certain disallowance under section 36 (1)(iii) assuming that interest bearing funds were utilized for making interest-free advances by the Assessee. The Tribunal observed that upon perusal of records, the company had sufficient interest free and in fact it made such interest free advances to the tune of only 20.43% of the total interest free funds available with the Assessee company and therefore deleted the addition.

On the question of delayed payment by the Assessee to the account of Provident Fundafter the expiry of the due date as prescribed by the relevant Act was not allowed by the Tribunal.

Lastly, the Tribunal touched upon the topic of delay in pronouncement of an order by the Tribunal taking into consideration the lockdown imposed by the government during the unprecedented COVID19 pandemic. Where the Tribunal acknowledged the time limit of 90 days prescribed under Rule 34(5) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, and usage of the word “ordinarily” therein. It held that a pedantic view of the rule cannot be taken since these are extra-ordinary situations and that such period of 90 days must be computed by excluding at least the period during which the lockdown was in force. It also concluded that this this does not create any bar on the discretion of benches to re-fix the matters for clarifications because of the considerable time gap between hearing a case and finalizing an order thereon. Eagel Steel Industries P. Ltd. v. ITO [ITA No. 3151/Ahd/2016 (Trib) ,CIT v.Dalmia Cement (P.) Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 377(Delhi)(HC) , DCIT v. JSW Ltd. (ITA Nos. 6264 & 6103/Mum/2018 (Mum) (Trib) relied upon. (I.T.A. No. 1538/Ahd/2018 & 1539/Ahd/2018 dt. 11.09.202 (Ahd) (Trib) ) (AY. 2013-14 & 2014-15)