2012 (6) TMI 518 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Denies Jurisdiction to Extend Time Limit under Income Tax Act

Agni Briquette (P.) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2

Agni Briquette (P.) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2 - TMI 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.