Writ petition challenging tax tribunal order dismissed for delay. No grave illegality found.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order due to a delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner's applications for condonation of delay were rejected, and the court found no grave illegality or fundamental rights violation to warrant intervention. Emphasizing that repeated applications under section 254(2) could not extend appeal deadlines, the court held that defects in the Tribunal's orders did not justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. No costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues:
- Delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal
- Dismissal of application under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act
- Maintainability of the writ petition

Analysis:
The case involved a writ petition against an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal due to a delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner received the appellate order on September 15, 1983, and sent the appeal papers by post on November 11, 1983, which were received by the Tribunal on November 24, 1983, seven days after the due date. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as barred by time on May 28, 1987. The petitioner filed an application under section 254(2) of the Act, contending that he had sent a telegram seeking an adjournment and had applied for condonation of delay on June 18, 1986. However, the Tribunal dismissed the application on September 10, 1987, stating that the telegram was not received on the date of hearing and there was no reliable evidence of the condonation application being sent to the Tribunal.

Regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, the Revenue raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the petitioner should have filed an application under section 256(1) of the Act against the Tribunal's orders. The petitioner's counsel argued that the court could intervene under Article 226 of the Constitution in case of grave illegality or violation of fundamental rights. However, the court found no apparent illegality or fundamental right violation in this case. The court also noted that the application under section 254(2) was rejected on September 19, 1987, and the writ petition was filed on December 5, 1989, more than two years later, indicating a lack of diligence on the petitioner's part.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner's repeated applications under section 254(2) could not unilaterally extend the time for filing appeals. The court held that even if there were defects in the Tribunal's orders, they did not amount to patent errors warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. No costs were awarded in the judgment.

---