K.S.Sridhar, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

MA 20/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6389 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N MADHAVAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI . , [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER ] M.P.NO.20/CHNY/2018 ( IN ./I.T.A. NO.3249/MDS/2016 ) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-2008. K.S. SRIDHAR, NO.4, GANDHI NAGAR, ALWARTHIRUNAGAR, CHENNAI 600 087. [PAN AMFPS 0388A] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD 6(2) CHENNAI (PETITIONER) ( !'#$ /RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. N. MADHAVAN, ADDL. CIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 20.04.2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.04.2018 % / O R D E R ASSESSEE IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION STATES THAT TRIBUNAL DID NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE DELAY CONDONATION PETIT ION AND MADE NO MENTION ABOUT THE TREATMENT TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE I N AN AYURVEDHIC DISPENSARY AT KERALA, THOUGH A COPY OF THE PRESCRIP TION WAS PRODUCED. M.P. 20/CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN ADJOURNMENT PETITI ON, NO GOOD REASON HAS BEEN SHOWN FOR GIVING AN ADJOURNMEN T. HENCE, THE APPLICATION IS REJECTED. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE A ND PERUSED THE ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT CONDONE TH E DELAY OF 145 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL FINDING THE REASONS MENTI ONED TO BE INADEQUATE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS REPRODUCED THE AFFIDA VIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FULL AT PARA 3 OF ITS ORDER. SAID AFF IDAVIT SPEAKS ABOUT THE TREATMENT UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AT KOTTAKKAL, KERALA. HAVING REPRODUCED THE AFFIDAVIT IN THE ORDER ITSELF, I CAN NOT SAY THAT THE TREATMENT TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AT KOTTAKKAL, KERAL A WAS NOT IN MIND OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING NOT TO CONDONE THE DELAY. THAT THE AFFIDAVIT WAS CONSIDERED IS CLEAR FROM PARA 4 OF I TS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 4. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFIED THE DELAY ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE ASSESSE E STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING FROM HYPERTENSION, RHEMOTOID ARTHRITIS AND OTHER PROBLEMS AND HE WAS ADMITTED IN VIJAYA HOSPITAL ON 3/3/2016 AND DISCHRE GED ON 05.03.2016 AS PER VIJAY MEDICAL & EDUCATIONAL TRUST S DISCHARGE SUMMARY (AT PAGE 41 OF FILE) BEARING IP NO.2347/2016, BED NO.309, DATED NIL. THIS REASON ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY DOCTOR S CERTIFICATE AND THE ADMISSION CERTIFICATE WAS ONLY 3 DAYS I.E. FROM 03.03.2016TO 05.03.2016. THEREFORE, I AM OF T HE OPINION THAT THIS KIND OF DELAY DOES NOT WARRANT M.P. 20/CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: CONDONATION, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY V ALID PROOF FOR UNDERGOING TREATMENT ON THE ADVICE OF DOC TOR IN FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY 145 DAYS.. ACCORDINGLY , THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED AS UN - ADMITTED. THUS IN THE GUISE OF A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ASSE SSEE IS ONLY SEEKING A REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THIS TRIBUN AL HAS NO POWER FOR REVIEW U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION STA NDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 20 TH APRIL, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / CHENNAI / DATED: 20 TH APRIL, 2018. KV ! ' #$ %$ / COPY TO: 1 . PETITIONER 3. - () / CIT(A) 5. $01 ' 2 / DR 2. '345 / RESPONDENT 4. - / CIT 6. 16 7 / GF