2012 (6) TMI 518 - AT - Income Tax

Admissibility of petition for revision of order of Tribunal beyond period of 4 years from date of the order - appeal filed on 04.04.2012 against ex-parte order dated 23.02.07 rendered in respect of AY 97-98 - assessee contending limitation of period from date of service of order - Held 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. Although another four years has further been granted for filing a petition u/s.254(2) by the Statute, but on assessee having reasonable cause for non-filing of appeal. In present case, appeals filed in 2003, remained pending, until decided on 23/02/2007 ex-parte. Appellant has never enquired in the said four years between 2003 to 2007 about the fate of his appeals. After the lapse of 8 years, undisputedly a long gap, now this assessee is seeking a favourable decision which may tantamount to re-writing the Statute. Therefore, condonation as sought through these petitions is beyond jurisdiction, hence rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the miscellaneous petitions.
2. Justification for condoning the delay.
3. Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding the time limit for filing petitions under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Miscellaneous Petitions:
The petitions were filed on 4.4.2012, whereas the original order by the Tribunal was dated 23.2.2007. The petitions were marked as time-barred by 1 year, 1 month, and 10 days. The delay was attributed to the appellant not receiving the notice of the hearing due to the closure of the business and the unit being in possession of the Gujarat State Financial Corporation. The notice sent to the appellant was returned with the remark "left," and the appellant only became aware of the dismissal of the appeals from the ITAT website in September 2011. Subsequently, the appellant requested a certified copy of the order on 19.9.2011, received it on 18.11.2011, and filed the miscellaneous application on 4.4.2012.

2. Justification for Condoning the Delay:
The appellant argued that the delay should be condoned as they were unaware of the order due to the business closure and the unit's possession by the Gujarat State Financial Corporation. They cited the case of D. Saibaba v. Bar Council of India & Anr., where it was held that the date of the order should be construed as the date of communication or knowledge of the order. The appellant also referred to several other cases to support their argument that the delay should be calculated from the date they became aware of the order.

3. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions:
The Revenue argued that section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act clearly states that the Appellate Tribunal may rectify any mistake within four years from the date of the order, not from the date of communication or knowledge of the order. The Tribunal emphasized that the statute uses the term "date of the order" and not "date of service of the order." The Tribunal compared this with other sections, such as section 249(2) and section 253(3), where the statute explicitly mentions the date of service or communication. The Tribunal concluded that the language of section 254(2) is unambiguous and does not allow for the extension of the four-year period based on the date of communication or knowledge of the order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that it does not have the jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the four-year period prescribed by section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized that its role is to interpret and follow the statute, not to amend it. The petitions for condonation of delay were therefore rejected, and both miscellaneous applications were dismissed.