TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1750
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the only substantial questions of law on which the appeals are admitted, are as follows: "1) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is justified in extending the stay of collection of taxes beyond 365 days ignoring the third proviso to the Section 254 (2A) of the Act? 2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in keeping the appeals pending for more than one year and extending the stay from time to time in spite of the judgment of this Court in the Assessee's own case for the Assessment Year 2007-08 in I.T.T.A.No.291 of 2013?" 3. Heard Ms. K. Mamtha Chowdary, learned senior standing counsel for the Appellant/Department and Mr. A.V.A. Siva Karthikeya, learned counsel for the responden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o hear and decide appeals within a period of four years from the end of the financial year in which such appeal is filed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 253. In other words, sub-section (2A) itself was incorporated under the Finance Act, 1999 and it reads as follows: "In every appeal, the Appellate Tribunal, where it is possible, may hear and decide such appeal within a period of four years from the end of the financial year in which such appeal is filed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 253......" 7. After the insertion of sub-section (2A), two provisos were inserted under the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 01-06-2001. These two provisos originally inserted, read as follows: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the appeal within one year. In fact, the language employed in subVRS, section (2A) is to the effect that the Appellate Tribunal may hear and decide the appeal within four years, "Wherever it is possible". Therefore, the Parliament in its wisdom thought it fit not to make it mandatory for the Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeal within four years, by employing by the words "wherever it is possible". That there could be cases where it is not possible has been recognized by the Parliament, which is why the words "wherever it is possible" have been used. 11. The obligation to dispose of an appeal within four years, under sub-section (2A), because of the peculiar language used by the Parliament, is apparently only directory and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n our considered view, has to be understood with two clear prescriptions on caveat. They are: (1) that the third proviso has to be understood primarily as directory and not mandatory; (2) that in individual cases where the Tribunal finds that the Assessee is responsible for procrastinating the decision of the appeal, the Tribunal should vacate the stay at its discretion. 13. This, in our considered view, is the manner in which the first question of law has to be answered. In other words, a stay will not stand automatically vacated under the third proviso to subsection (2A) of Section 254, unless the Tribunal records a finding that the Assessee was responsible for the procrastination of the hearing of the appeal. 14. ....