JUDGMENT 1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal allowing the appeal filed by the assessee, set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the application filed by the assessee to recall the order dismissing the appeal in limine for non-payment of admitted tax. The assessee is an individual. He is carrying on the business of real estate as a land developer. For the assessment year 2007-08, he filed his return of income on 31.10.2007 disclosing the income of Rs. 2,49,87,100/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') and a demand of Rs. 96,64,935/- was raised. Subsequently, there was a survey conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 27.6.2008. During the survey, it was noticed that the assessee had debited a sum of Rs. 7,55,85,800/- for the assessment year 2006-07, and Rs. 6,46,86,000/-for the assessment year 2007-08 towards the earth filling charges in Kasavanahalli Project. It was noticed that the assessee had incurred these expenses through self-made vouchers on land levelling. Since the Assessing Authority doubted the incurring of these expenses, the matter was referred to the District Valuation Officer to find out the actual costs of developmental expenses incurred. The District Valuation Officer valued the developmental expenses to the tune of Rs. 9,30,000/- for both the assessment years. Based on the Valuation Report, the Assessing Authority allowed a sum of Rs. 4,27,800/- on proportionate basis as developmental expenses and proceeded to make an addition of Rs. 6,42,58,200/-. The assessee objected to the said assessment. However, his objections were over-ruled and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act, by an order dated 31.3.2009, determining the total taxable income at Rs. 9,02,68,100/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the First Appellate Authority. Before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee admitted the income of Rs. 2,49,57,100/- as per the return of income filed by him. He did not pay any tax on the said admitted income. Therefore, the appeal was rejected in limine under Section 249(4)(A) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. Before the First Appellate Authority, the assessee admitted the income of Rs. 2,49,57,100/- as per the return of income filed by him. He did not pay any tax on the said admitted income. Therefore, the appeal was rejected in limine under Section 249(4)(A) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. In the Paper Book filed before the Tribunal, copies of the challans evidencing the payment of admitted tax for the concerned assessment years and copies of the petition for recalling the order of the First Appellate Authority in dismissing the appeal in limine and also a copy of the letter of the First Appellate Authority rejecting the assessee's application to recall the order of the First Appellate Authority which has dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine were produced. It was submitted before the Tribunal that the assessee has paid the entire tax on the admitted income and the same is evidenced from the challans produced which is running from pages 1 to 6 of the Paper Book. It was also submitted that assessee had moved an application before the Appellate Authority to recall the impugned order. The said application was rejected by the Appellate Authority vide its letter dated 23.11.2010. Relying on a judgment of this Court, it was contended before the Tribunal that the assessee's request to recall the order of dismissing the appeal in limine should have been allowed. The Tribunal, on consideration of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, after noticing the challans evidencing payment of admitted tax, was of the view that the matter should be remitted back to the Appellate Authority, who shall verify whether the entire admitted tax has been paid and if so, he shall decide the case on merits. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the Revenue contended that once the admitted tax liability is not paid, the appeal preferred is not maintainable and the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Therefore, the order passed by the First Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal in limine is legal and valid. If the admitted tax is paid subsequent to the said order, that is not a ground for setting aside the order by the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, the order passed by the First Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal in limine is legal and valid. If the admitted tax is paid subsequent to the said order, that is not a ground for setting aside the order by the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, he submits that the entire approach of the Tribunal is incorrect and requires to be set aside. 3. Section 249 of the Act deals with form of appeal and limitation. Sub-Section (4) of Section 249 of the Act reads as under: No appeal under this Chapter shall be admitted unless at the time of filing of the appeal,- (a) Where a return has been filed by the assessee, the assessee has paid the tax due on the income returned by him; or (b) Where no return has been fifed by the assessee, the assessee has paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him: Provided that in a case falling under Clause (b) and on an application made by the appellant in this behalf the Commissioner (Appeals) may, for any good and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, exempt him from the operation of the provisions of that clause. Therefore, from the aforesaid provision, it is clear when the return has been filed by the assessee, unless the assessee pays the admitted tax due on the income returned by him, no appeal shall be entertained and admitted. Therefore, if admitted tax is not paid which falls under Clause (a) of Sub-Section (4) of Section 249 of the Act, the Commissioner (Appeals) is not vested with any power to waive payment of such admitted tax and entertain the appeal. The order of dismissing the appeal in such circumstances is automatic. Therefore, the appeal dismissed under Clause (a) of Sub-Section (4) of Section 249 of the Act for non-payment of admitted tax due on the income returned by the assessee cannot be found fault with. However, if after such dismissal, if the assessee pays the admitted tax and requests the Appellate Authority to recall the order dismissing the appeal in limine and to consider the appeal on merits under the aforesaid provision or under any other provision of the Act, there is no prohibition or legal impediment for the Appellate Authority to recall its earlier order and entertain the appeal and decide the same on merits. The Apex Court in the case of Vijay Prakash D. Mehta and Another Vs. Collector of Customs (Preventive) , Bombay, AIR 1988 SC 2010 dealing with the similar provisions under the Customs Act has held that the right of appeal is neither an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice, the principles of which must be followed in all judicial and quasi-judicial adjudications. The right of appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant. It is not the law that adjudication by itself, following the rules of natural justice, would be violative of any right, constitutional or statutory without any right of appeal, as such. If the statute gives a right to appeal upon certain conditions, it upon fulfilment of those conditions that the right becomes vested in, and exercisable by, the appellant. If discretion is vested, then there is an obligation to act judicially and properly. The purpose of such restriction is to act in terrorem to make the people comply with the provisions of law. Therefore, the object of stipulating conditions such as demand of admitted tax is a condition precedent for entertaining the appeals and admitting the appeals is to see that the appellant obeys the law, Though the right of appeal is conferred under a statute, the said right is subjected to the restrictions imposed under the very same statute. There cannot be any absolute right de hors the provisions of the statute. Therefore, in the instant case, the statute has conferred a right of appeal. It also in unequivocal terms expressly has stated that in cases where the assessee files a return and admits the liability to pay tax on the income returned, unless he pays the said admitted tax due on the income returned, he may not exercise the statutory right of appeal. As is clear from Clause (b) of Sub-Section (4) of Section 249 of the Act in all cases falling under Sub-Section (4) of Section 249, no discretion is vested with the Appellate Authority. Therefore, in cases falling under clause (a) of Sub-Section (4) of Section 249 of the Act, if the said condition is not fulfilled by the assessee, the appeal shall not be admitted and the only order that can be passes is dismissal of the appeal in limine. Therefore, in cases falling under clause (a) of Sub-Section (4) of Section 249 of the Act, if the said condition is not fulfilled by the assessee, the appeal shall not be admitted and the only order that can be passes is dismissal of the appeal in limine. Keeping in mind, the object with which these provisions are introduced, once the assessee realises his obligations under the Statute, the purpose with which these provisions in terrorem are introduced under the Act, obeys the statutory obligations, pays the tax, then he may not be denied the right of appeal which the Statute has provided to him. In the absence of any express words circumscribing the powers of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has the ample power to recall its earlier order dismissing the appeal in limine and to hear the appeal on merits. If the admitted tax had been paid, the Appellate Authority ought to have admitted the appeal and hear the appeal on merits. Of course, while recalling the order, it is open to the authority to find out whether the said application is made bona fide, is there any unreasonable delay in approaching the Tribunal and other matters. But once the conduct of the assessee is not such as to disentitle him to exercise his right of appeal by obeying the law, that is by depositing the admitted tax liability, the Appellate Authority should be liberal in entertaining these applications and hear the appeal on merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. In the light of what we have stated, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot he found fault with. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.