2018 (4) TMI 1699 - AT - Income Tax

Dismissal of Miscellaneous Petition for Delay Condonation and Treatment Issues

K.S. Sridhar Versus The Income Tax Officer, Salary Ward 6 (2) Chennai

The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition concerning delay condonation and treatment at an Ayurvedic dispensary, as the reasons provided were ... Rectification u/s 254 - Condonation of delay denied - delay of 145 day - Petition states that Tribunal did not properly considered the delay condonation petition and made no mention about the treatment taken by the assessee in an Ayurvedhic dispensary at Kerala - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal did not condone the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal finding the reasons mentioned to be inadequate. The Tribunal has reproduced the affidavit filed by the assessee in full at para 3 of its order. Said affidavit speaks about the treatment undertaken by the assessee at Kottakkal, Kerala. Having reproduced the affidavit in the order itself, I cannot say that the treatment taken by the assessee at Kottakkal, Kerala was not in mind of this Tribunal while deciding not to condone the delay. Thus in the guise of a Miscellaneous Petition assessee is only seeking a review of the order of this Tribunal. This Tribunal has no power for review u/s.254(2) of the Act. Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed. Issues: Delay condonation petition consideration, treatment taken by assessee at Ayurvedic dispensary, justification for delay in filing appeal, review of Tribunal's order, power of Tribunal for review under section 254(2) of the Act.The judgment pertains to a Miscellaneous Petition where the assessee raised concerns regarding the Tribunal's failure to properly consider the delay condonation petition and the treatment undertaken at an Ayurvedic dispensary in Kerala. The Tribunal rejected the application for adjournment as no valid reason was provided. The Tribunal did not condone the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal, deeming the reasons insufficient. It was noted that the affidavit submitted by the assessee mentioned health issues but lacked supporting medical certificates, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal clarified that it had considered the affidavit and treatment details while deciding not to condone the delay. The assessee's attempt to seek a review through the Miscellaneous Petition was deemed inappropriate as the Tribunal lacked the power to review under section 254(2) of the Act. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's original decision. The judgment was pronounced in an open court on a specified date in Chennai.