M/S Agni Briquette Pvt.Ltd., Anand V. THE Dy.CIT.,Co.Circle-2, Baroda

MA 72/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8479 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation

Judgement Text

FIT FOR PUB LICATION SD/- SD/- (AM) (JM) , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD , . .!'#$, % & BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NOS.72 AND 73/AHD/2012 ( IN I.T.A. NOS.498 & 497/AHD/2003) ( ' ( ' ( ' ( ' ( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1997-98 ) M/S.AGNI BRIQUETTE PVT.LTD. GUJARAT SAW MILL COMPOUND RAJSHREE TALKIES ROAD ANAND ' ' ' ' / VS. THE ACIT CIRCLE-2 ANAND * % ./+, ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAJCA 8398 R ( *- / // / APPLICANT ) .. ( ./*- / RESPONDENT ) *- 0 / APPLICANT BY : SHRI J.P.SHAH ./*- 1 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.L.KUREEL '2 1 3% / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 20/4/2012 4'( 1 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/6/12 5 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE TWO MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS HAVE BEEN FILED ON 4.4.2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 ARISING FROM A CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL; AS MENTIONED IN THE NOMENCLATURE H EREINABOVE; DATED 23/02/2007. THE REFERRED TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN FIL ED AGAINST THE ORDERS MA NOS.72 & 73/AHD/2012 (O/O ITA NOS.498 & 497/AHD/2003) AGNI BRIQUETTE PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 1997-98 - 2 - OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-V, BARODA RESPECTIVELY 22. 11.2002 AND 20.11.2002 PASSED FOR THE A.Y. 1997-98 AS RECORDED BY THE RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. DUE TO NO N-APPEARANCE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT, THE RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE BE NCH HAD THOUGHT IT JUSTIFIABLE TO DISMISS BOTH THE APPEALS EX-PARTE FOLLOWING TWO PRECEDENTS, NAMELY (I) HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURTS DECI SION IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT [1997] (223 ITR 480) AND (II) HONBLE DELHI TRIBUNALS DECISION IN THE CASE OF M ULTIPLAN (INDIA) P.LTD. (38 ITD 320). HOWEVER, THE SHORT-PRAYER THROUGH THESE TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS IS TO REINSTATE THE SAID TWO APPEALS BY RECALLING THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 3. AT THE OUTSET, BEFORE WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE M ERITS OF THE PETITION, WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE REGISTRY HAS MAR KED THAT THESE TOW PETITIONS ARE TIME-BARRED BY 1 YEAR 1 MONTH AND 10 DAYS . THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS DATED 23.2.2007, HOWEVER, THE IMPUG NED PETITIONS HAVE BEEN FILED ON 4.4.2012. 4. IN RESPECT OF THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE MISCELL ANEOUS PETITION, LD.AR MR.J.P.SHAH HAS STATED THAT THE APPLICANT HAD ENQUIRED FROM ITAT WEBSITE ABOUT THE STATUS OF APPEAL AND CAME TO KNOW THAT THE ITAT A BENCH AHMEDABAD ON 23/02/2007 HAS DISMISSED BOTH TH E APPEALS. THEREAFTER ON 19.9.2011, THE APPLICANT HAD REQUESTE D THE REGISTRAR, ITAT TO GIVE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER AND THE EVIDE NCE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID LETTER, THE REGISTRY OF ITA T VIDE LETTER DATED 18/11/2011 ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO DEPOSIT THE REQUIS ITE FEES FOR OBTAINING MA NOS.72 & 73/AHD/2012 (O/O ITA NOS.498 & 497/AHD/2003) AGNI BRIQUETTE PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 1997-98 - 3 - CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER. ON SUBMITTING THE CHA LLAN, A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 18/ 11/2011. MR.SHAH HAS INFORMED THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY WAS C LOSED DOWN AND THE SAID UNIT WAS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE GUJARAT STAT E FINANCIAL CORPORATION. THE NOTICE WHICH WAS SENT TO THE ASSE SSEE RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY WITH THE REMARKS LEFT. SINC E THE DATE OF HEARING WAS NOT IN THE NOTICE OF THE APPELLANT, HENCE, NO O NE WAS PRESENT ON THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED ON 23/2/2007. REVENUE DEPART MENT HAD ALREADY ATTACHED THE PROPERTY OF THE DIRECTORS AND INITIATE D RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THEREFORE, THE SAID ITA T ORDER DATED 23/2/2007 FOR BOTH THE APPEALS WAS RECEIVED ON 19.1 1.2011. THEREAFTER, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS MOVED ON 4.4.2012 , HENCE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD. IN SUPPORT, CERTAIN PARAS OF M ISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS ARE REFERRED BEFORE US, REPRODUCED FOR READY REFERE NCE:- 4. THE APPLICANT THEREAFTER WROTE LETTER TO THE DE PUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD ON 19/09/2011 AND REQUES TED TO GIVE THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER AND EVIDENCE OF NOT ICE SERVED TO THE THEM. IN RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER, THE REGISTRAR OF ITAT, AHMEDABAD, VIDE LETTER DATED 18/11/2011, ASKED THE APPELLANT TO DEPOSIT FEES OF RS.40/- THROUGH CHALLAN FOR OBTAINI NG CERTIFIED COPY OF THE EX-PARTE ORDER AS WELL AS EVIDENCES. ON SUB MITTING THE CHALLAN, THE APPLICANT WAS GIVEN CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER AND EVIDENCES PERSONALLY ON 18/11/2011. IN THE SAID EV IDENCE, YOUR HONOUR WILL NOTICE THAT SINCE BUSINESS OF THE COMPA NY WAS CLOSED AND THE UNIT WAS IN POSSESSION OF GUJARAT STATE FIN ANCIAL CORPORATION, THE NOTICE SENT TO THE APPLICANT WAS R ETURNED BACK TO THE SENDER BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY WITH A REMARK L EFT. AS A RESULT, THE APPLICANT COULD NOT REMAIN PRESENT BEFO RE THE HON.BENCH IN THE HEARING FIXED ON 23/02/2007. THE SAID ENVELOPE WITH THE REMARK MARKED LEFT IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH MARKED ANNEXURE-C (COLLECTIVELY). MEANTIME, THE DEPARTMEN T ATTACHED MA NOS.72 & 73/AHD/2012 (O/O ITA NOS.498 & 497/AHD/2003) AGNI BRIQUETTE PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 1997-98 - 4 - THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE DIRECTORS AND INITIATE D RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PROPERTY OF THE DIRECTORS A ND AGAINST THE COMPANY TO WHOM THE SAID PROPERTY WAS SOLD. FINALL Y, IN VIEW OF DAY TO DAY HARASSMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT THE APPLICA NT HAS FILED A WRIT PETITION NO.3910/2012 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT WHICH IS PENDING. THE APPLICANT WAS THEREFORE CONT INUOUSLY INVOLVED IN THIS AND HENCE COULD NOT APPROACH YOUR HONOUR EARLIER FOR REINSTATEMENT OF THE APPEAL. AN AFFIDAVIT IN S UPPORT OF THE ABOVE IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH MARKED ANNEXURE-D. 5. THE APPLICANT HAS THEREFORE RECEIVED THE ITAT OR DER DATED 23/02/2007 ON 19/11/2011 ONLY. IN THE AFORESAID CI RCUMSTANCES, THE APPLICANT REQUESTS YOUR HONOUR TO CONDONE THE D ELAY IN FILING THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND HUMBLY PRAYS THA T, UNDER THE ABOVE STATED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, THE ABOVE STATED EX-PARTE O RDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL ON 23/02/2007, MAY BE KINDLY R ECALLED AND THE MATTER BE DECIDED AFRESH AFTER GRANTING THE APP LICANT, A PROPER AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND FOR WHI CH ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT FOR EVER SHALL REMAIN GRATEF UL TO YOUR HONOURS. 4.1. THE LD.AR HAS REFERRED A WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 528 OF 2002 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF D.SAI BABA VS. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR. (2003) 6 SCC 186, DATE OF JUDGEMENT 6/5/2003 FOR THE LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT A DECISION CAN BE SAID TO BE COMMUNICATED. HE HAS RAISED A QUESTION WHICH WAS BEFORE THE HON'BLE COU RT THAT HOW CAN A PERSON AGGRIEVED BE EXPECTED TO EXERCISE THE RIGHT CONFERRED BY ANY PROVISIONS OF LAW UNLESS THE ORDER IS COMMUNICATED TO OR IS KNOWN TO HIM EITHER ACTUALLY OR CONSTRUCTIVELY? LD.AR HAS PLEAD ED THAT THE WORDS THE DATE OF THAT ORDER, THEREFORE MUST BE CONSTRUED AS THE DATE OF COMMUNICATION OR KNOWLEDGE, AS HELD IN THE SAID ORD ER OF THE HON'BLE COURT. LD.DR HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON VEKATADR I TRADERS LTD. VS. MA NOS.72 & 73/AHD/2012 (O/O ITA NOS.498 & 497/AHD/2003) AGNI BRIQUETTE PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 1997-98 - 5 - CIT (2001) 248 ITR 0681 (MAD.) FOR THE LEGAL PROPOS ITION THAT THE DELAY WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE EXPLAINED IS THE PERIOD FRO M THE DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED HAD COME TO THE KNOWLEDG E OF THE ASSESSEE. IF THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE REQUIRES THAT A LIBERAL VIEW B E TAKEN, THEN A LIBERAL VIEW WOULD INDEED BE WARRANTED WHILE CONSIDERING TH E QUESTION OF CONDONING THE DELAY. AN ANOTHER ORDER OF HON'BLE MADARAS HIGH COURT PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF O.A.O.A.M. MUTHIAH CHETTI AR VS. CIT (1951) 019 ITR 0402(MAD.) FOR THE LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT AN APPLICATION FILED BEFORE A COMMISSIONER BE NOT TREATED BARRED BY LIMI TATION IF THE RELIEF SOUGHT COULD NOT BE OBTAINED UNDER ANY OTHER PROVIS IONS OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE THE APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUE OF A WRIT O F MANDAMUS WAS HELD AS MAINTAINABLE. RELIANCE HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED ON PE TLAD BULAKHIDAS MILLS CO.LTD. VS. RAJ SINGH (1959) 037 ITR 0264 (BOMBAY) TO DESCRIBE THE EXPRESSION ORDER; I.E. AN ORDER OF WHICH THE PAR TY HAS CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE. LIMITATION SHOULD NOT BE COMPUTED FROM A D ATE EARLIER THAN THAT ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY KNEW OF THE ORDER OR HAD AN OPPORTUNITY OF KNOWING OF THE ORDER. THE LD.AR HAS ALSO DRAWN OU R ATTENTION ON THE SEQUENCE OF THE DATES AS FOLLOWS:- 25.01.2007 NOTICE OF HEARING BY THE TRIBUNAL CAME BACK UNSERVE D WITH THE REMARK LEFT. 23.02.2007 TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OR DER DATED 23.02.2007 07.05.2007 THE ABOVE DISMISSAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CAME BACK UNSERVED WITH THE REMARK LEFT. 29.09.2008 THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL SENT THE ORDER TO ASST.C .I.T., BARODA FOR SERVICE ON ASSESSEE. 26.07.2011 ASSESSEE WRITES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE T RIBUNALS APPEAL IS PENDING; ANNEXURE-B IN M.A. SEPT. 2011 FROM TRIBUNALS WEBSITE IT IS KNOW THAT THE ASSESSEES MA NOS.72 & 73/AHD/2012 (O/O ITA NOS.498 & 497/AHD/2003) AGNI BRIQUETTE PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 1997-98 - 6 - APPEAL IS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 19.09.2011 ASSESSEE APPLIES FOR THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL, COPY OF THE EVIDENCE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE AND SERVICE OF ABOVE ORDER. 18.11.2011 THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO DE POSIT THE AMOUNT OF RS.40/- FOR GETTING THE ABOVE COPIES. 19.11.2011 ASSESSEE GETS THE ABOVE COPIES. 04.04.2012 ASSESSEE FILES MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. 5. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LD.SR.DR MR.P.L.KU REEL HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE LANGUAGE OF STATUTE AND ARGUED THA T THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY AT ANY TIME WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER CAN RECTIFY THE MISTAKE. THERE IS NO MANDATE PRESCRIBE D TO CONDONE THE DELAY IF A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER. THE ACT HAS THUS CLEAR LY USED THE TERMINOLOGY DATE OF THE ORDER AND NOT USED THE TERMINOLOGY D ATE OF SERVICE OF ORDER. THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY STRETCHING OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE ACT. WHEN AN ORDER HAS BEEN SIGNED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL, THEN THAT IS THE DATE OF THE ORDER WHICH SHALL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR COMPUTING THE TIME PERIOD AS PRESCRIBED U/S.254(2) OF THE I.T .ACT. 5.1. IN RESPONSE, LD.AR IN HIS REJOINDER HAS AGAIN REFERRED THE DECISION OF D.SAIBABA VS. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR. (SUPRA ) THAT WHERE THE LAW PROVIDES A REMEDY TO A PERSON, THEN THE PROVISION T O BE SO CONSTRUED IN THE CASE OF AMBIGUITY SO AS TO MAKE AVAILING OF THE REMEDY PRACTICABLE AND THE EXERCISE OF POWER CONFERRED ON THE AUTHORIT Y MEANINGFUL AND EFFECTIVE. A CONSTRUCTION WHICH WOULD RENDER THE PROVISION NEGATORY IS MA NOS.72 & 73/AHD/2012 (O/O ITA NOS.498 & 497/AHD/2003) AGNI BRIQUETTE PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 1997-98 - 7 - TO BE AVOIDED. THE PROCESS OF INTERPRETATION CANNO T BE UTILIZED FOR IMPLANTING A HEART INTO A DEAD PROVISION; HOWEVER, THE POWER TO CONSTRUE A PROVISION OF LAW CAN ALWAYS BE SO EXERCISED SO AS TO GIVE THROB TO A SINKING HEART, HE HAS CONCLUDED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AT SOME LENGTH. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE PRECEDENTS CITED BUT FOUND TO BE NOT AP PLICABLE. WE FIND NO FORCE IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION PRIMARILY BECA USE OF THE REASON THAT THE STATUTE DO NOT AUTHORIZE US TO ENTERTAIN ANY PE TITION WHICH HAS BEEN FILED U/S.254(2) AT ANY TIME BEYOND FOUR YEARS FORM THE DATE OF THE ORDER. FOR READY REFERENCE; THE RELEVANT SECTION IS REPROD UCED BELOW:- SECTION 254 (2) :- THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY, AT ANY TIME WITHIN F OUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER, WITH A VIEW TO RE CTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) AND SHALL MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT IF THE MI STAKE IS BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE [ASSESSING OFFICE R:] 6.1. IF WE COMPARE THE WORDS OF THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 254(2) OF THE I.T.ACT WITH FEW OTHER LIKE NATURE PROVISIONS OF TH IS VERY ACT WHERE A TIME PERIOD IS PRESCRIBED IN FILING OF AN APPEAL, T HEN WE HAVE NOTICED THAT IN THOSE PROVISIONS, THE STATUTE HAS CLEARLY MANDAT ED THE DATE OF SERVICE AS THE DATE FOR CALCULATING THE TIME PERIOD PRESCRI BED. IN SECTION 249; RELEVANT PROVISION FOR APPEALS BEFORE THE LEARNED C IT(APPEALS) THE LIMITATION FOR FILING AN APPEAL IS PRESCRIBED AS PE R SECTION 249(2); REPRODUCED BELOW:- SECTION 249 (2) :- THE APPEAL SHALL BE PRESENTED WITHIN THIRTY DA YS OF THE FOLLOWING DATE, THAT IS TO SAY, MA NOS.72 & 73/AHD/2012 (O/O ITA NOS.498 & 497/AHD/2003) AGNI BRIQUETTE PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 1997-98 - 8 - [(A) WHERE THE APPEAL IS UNDER SECTION 248, THE DAT E OF PAYMENT OF THE TAX, OR] (B) WHERE THE APPEAL RELATES TO ANY ASSESSMENT OR P ENALTY, THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND RELATING TO THE ASS ESSMENT OR PENALTY: [PROVIDED THAT, WHERE AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE UNDER SEC TION 146 FOR REOPENING AN ASSESSMENT, THE PERIOD FROM THE DA TE ON WHICH THE APPLICATION IS MADE TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER PASSED ON THE APPLICATION IS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE EXCL UDED, OR] (C) IN ANY OTHER CASE, THE DATE ON WHICH INTIMATION OF THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED AGAINST IS SERVED. 6.2. IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT SECTION 249(2) HAS SPE CIFICALLY DIRECTED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING 30 DAYS THE DATE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IS THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND OR IN OTHER CASES DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS SERVED . AS AGAINST THAT, U/S.254(2), THE STATUTE HAS CHOSEN NOT TO COMPUTE THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FROM THE DATE WHEN AN ITAT ORDER IS SERVED, BUT THE STATUTE HAS CHOSEN TO COMPUTE THE TIME WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER. 6.3. EVEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF FILING AN APPEAL TO TH E APPELLATE TRIBUNAL THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED IS 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF COMMUNICATION OF THE ORDER AS PER SECTION 253(3); REPRODUCED BELOW:- SECTION 253(3) :- EVERY APPEAL UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECT ION (2) SHALL BE FILED WITHIN SIXTY DAYS OF THE DATE ON WHI CH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED AGAINST IS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE OR TO THE COMMISSIONER, AS THE CASE MAY BE : MA NOS.72 & 73/AHD/2012 (O/O ITA NOS.498 & 497/AHD/2003) AGNI BRIQUETTE PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 1997-98 - 9 - 7. ON READING OF THESE PARALLEL SECTIONS, THEREFORE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE STATUTE HAS EITHER MENTIONED THAT THE DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED SHOULD BE THE DATE OF COMMUNICATION , OR THE DATE WHEN THE ORDER IS SERVED OR THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE NOTIC E OF DEMAND . HOWEVER, THE STATUTE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SUCH INDICAT ION WHILE DRAFTING THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE I.T.ACT RATH ER IT HAS PLAINLY MENTIONED, WITHOUT ANY AMBIGUITY, THAT THE APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL MAY AT ANY TIME WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORD ER SHALL MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT IF THE MISTAKE IS BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE B Y THE ASSESSEE. THE PURPOSE OF USAGE OF SUCH LANGUAGE APPEARS TO BE TH AT VIDE SECTION 254(2A) AN APPEAL IS OTHERWISE TO BE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS BY THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YE AR IN WHICH SUCH APPEAL IS FILED U/S.253(1) OF THE I.T.ACT. THEREAF TER, ANOTHER FOUR YEARS HAS FURTHER BEEN GRANTED FOR FILING A PETITION U/S. 254(2) BY THE STATUTE. IF WITHIN THE SAID LONG PERIOD OF EIGHT YEARS AN APPELLANT IS NOT VIGILANT ABOUT THE FATE OF ITS APPEAL, THEN SUCH AN APPELLAN T CANNOT BE TERMED AS A SERIOUS LITIGANT INTERESTED IN GETTING AN APPEAL FI NALIZED WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPE AL IN RESPECT OF THE ITA NO.497/AHD/2003 WAS FILED ON 6/2/2003. LIKEWISE, T HE APPEAL IN RESPECT OF ITA NO.498/AHD/2003 WAS FILED ON 6/2/2003. BOTH THESE APPEALS REMAINED PENDING UPTILL FEBRUARY-2007 AND THEN ON 2 3/02/2007 THESE APPEALS WERE DECIDED EX-PARTE BY THE IMPUGNED ORDERS BY THE RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCH. MEANING THEREBY THE APPELLANT H AS NEVER ENQUIRED IN THE SAID FOUR YEARS BETWEEN 2003 TO 2007 ABOUT THE FATE OF HIS APPEALS ALTHOUGH THOSE WERE FILED IN THE YEAR 2003. AFTER THE LAPSE OF 8 YEARS, MA NOS.72 & 73/AHD/2012 (O/O ITA NOS.498 & 497/AHD/2003) AGNI BRIQUETTE PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 1997-98 - 10 - UNDISPUTEDLY A LONG GAP, NOW THIS ASSESSEE IS SEEKI NG A FAVOURABLE DECISION WHICH MAY TANTAMOUNT TO RE-WRITING THE STA TUTE. 8. AN ANOTHER FEATURE OF THE STATUE IS WORTH TO MEN TION THAT VIDE SECTION 253(5) OF THE I.T.ACT THE APPELLATE TRIBUN AL HAS BEEN GIVEN POWER TO ADMIT AN APPEAL AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE RE LEVANT PERIOD, IF SATISFIED THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PR ESENTING IT WITHIN THAT PERIOD. RELEVANT SECTION IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- SECTION 253(5) :- THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY ADMIT AN APPEAL OR PERMIT THE FILING OF A MEMORANDUM OF CROSS-OBJECTIONS AFTE R THE EXPIRY OF THE RELEVANT PERIOD REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (3) OR S UB-SECTION (4), IF IT IS SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT P RESENT IT WITHIN THAT PERIOD. SOMEHOW, THIS TRIBUNAL IS NOT ENSHRINED WITH SUCH JUDICIAL POWER IN RESPECT OF A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED U/S.25 4(2) OF THE I.T.ACT. IF WE ARE NOT GIVEN THAT POWER, THEN IT IS NOT EXPECTE D FROM US TO EXERCISE SUCH POWER WHICH IS NOT PROVIDED IN THE ACT. 9. AS FAR AS THIS JUDICIAL FORUM, I.E. INCOME TAX A PPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS CONCERNED, OUR JURISDICTION IS SIMPLY TO INTERPRET AND FOLLOW THE STATUTE. THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR US TO IMPORT ANY WORD INTO TH E STATUTE WHICH IS NOT THERE. SUCH IMPORTATION WOULD BE NOTHING BUT TO AM END THE STATUTE. EVEN IF THERE IS A CASUS-OMISSUS , THE DEFECT CAN BE REMEDIED THROUGH A LEGISLATION BY THE HON'BLE LEGISLATURES AND NOT BY A JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE CONDONA TION AS SOUGHT THROUGH THESE PETITIONS IS BEYOND OUR JURISDICTION, HENCE REJECTED. MA NOS.72 & 73/AHD/2012 (O/O ITA NOS.498 & 497/AHD/2003) AGNI BRIQUETTE PVT.LTD. VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 1997-98 - 11 - 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. SD/- SD/ - ( . .!'#$ ) ( ) % ( A.K. GARODIA ) ( M UKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 15/ 06 /2012 63..', .'../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS 5 1 .7 8 7( 5 1 .7 8 7( 5 1 .7 8 7( 5 1 .7 8 7(/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *- / THE APPLICANT. 2. ./*- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 9() / THE CIT(A)-V, BARODA 5. 7 >> >/ // / + + + + ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION..6.6.12 (DICTATION-PAD PAG ES 23 ATTACHED) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 6.6.12 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S15.6.12 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 15.6.12 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER