TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (8) TMI 269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O. Even the claim of the assessee under s. 11 was not entertained by the CIT(A) on the ground that it was not placed before the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal along with an application for stay of outstanding demand of Rs. 45,45,368. The stay application was disposed of by the Tribunal vide its order dt.23rd Jan., 2002, staying recovery of outstanding demand till30th June, 2002, subject to payment of Rs. 5 lakhs by31st Jan., 2002. In consequent assessee made the payment of Rs. 5 lakhs and hearing of the appeal was started. During the course of hearing, the assessee moved an application for admission of the additional evidence and that application was disposed of by the Tribunal vide its order dt.5th Aug.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see in rebuttal has emphatically argued that the purpose of inserting this sub-s. (2A) to s. 254 is only to put a check on a stay granted by the Tribunal for unlimited period. The intention of the legislature is also clear from the notes on clauses on Finance Bill 1999. Through this explanatory note, it has been clarified that under the existing provisions, there was no limit for disposal of appeals filed before the CIT(A) or the Tribunal under the IT Act or other direct tax enactment. By inserting this, sub-section, the legislature has tried to curtail the delays and to ensure the disposal of the pending appeals within a reasonable time. Learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that it has been noticed a number of times that whenever....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....direct tax enactments. In the absence of any statutory provisions, there is a considerable delay in the disposal of the appeal. It is also seen that there is a disinclination to take up the old appeals for disposal. To ensure accountability as well as the disposal of appeals within a reasonable time-frame, the Act has amended ss. 250 and 254 of the IT Act to provide that the CIT(A), where it is possible, may hear and decide every appeal within a period of one year from the end of the financial year in which the appeals are filed. The Appellate Tribunal, where it is possible, may hear and decide every appeal within a period of four years from the end of the financial year in which the appeal is filed. To discourage filing of frivolous appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecovery proceedings pending an appeal before the Tribunal, as will prevent the appeal, if successful, from being rendered nugatory. 8. The powers of the Tribunal were repeatedly examined by various High Courts in following judgments: (i) Ritz Ltd. vs. D.D. Vyas & Ors. (1990) 84 CTR (Bom) 49 : (1990) 185 ITR 311 (Bom); (ii) Agra Beverages Corpn. (P) Ltd. vs. ITAT & Ors. (1995) 83 Taxman 632 (All); and (iii) CIT vs. Smt. S. Vijayalakshmi (2000) 162 CTR (Mad) 569 : (2000) 242 ITR 46 (Mad). 9. On careful perusal of the relevant new provisions in the law and aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the considered opinion that sub-s. (2A) was inserted to s. 254 to curtail the delays and ensure the disposal of the pending appeal....