Rp/299/2016 Of M/S.greater Cochin Development Authority v. The Joint Director Of Income Tax(Osd)(Exemption)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/8TH ASHADHA, 1938 RP.No. 299 of 2016 () IN ITA.208/2014 ------------------------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 208/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED19-12-2014 REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT: ------------------------------------------------------ M/S.GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, S.A. ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-682 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI. R. LALU. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.VANDANA MENON SRI.V.V.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (OSD) (EXEMPTION), RANGE-4, KOCHI-689 006. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: DG APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE - A:COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO.CIT/CHN/12A/TECH/2005-06 DATED 27.08.2008 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS -NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of June, 2016 O R D E R Antony Dominic, J. These applications are filed seeking condonation of delayof 418 days in filing these review petitions. The affidavit filed insupport of these applications show that aggrieved by thejudgment of this Court, the petitioner had filed SLP(Civil)Nos.13065 and 13066 of 2015, which were dismissed by theApex Court by order dated 04.09.2015. It is stated that thereafter the matter was entrusted to the present counsel and thaton examination it was found that the petitioner has not claimedexemption under Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act. It is withthese averments, these petitions have been filed and accordingto the petitioner, the delay of 418 days has occurred in the mean R.P.No.299, 307/2016 while. 2.Despite the submissions made by the learned counsel,we are not satisfied that the petitioner has made out any groundfor condonation of delay. The fact that a new ground has beeninvented now is no reason to accept that the delay is a genuineone to be condoned. 3.That apart, we may also said that at no stage of theproceedings did the petitioner claim the benefit under Section10(20) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the petitioner cannotrely on that provision and now raise contention that thejudgment is erroneous for not considering a ground which wasnever urged. For all these reasons, we are not inclined to condone thedelay of 418 days in filing these Review Petitions. Hence, thedelay petitions are dismissed. Consequently, review petitionsare also dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE DG Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE