ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the assessee under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act') against the order
(2.) SUBSTANTIAL question of law proposed in the appeal, which has been pressed is in para 7(1), which is as under : "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the action of CIT(A) in not condoning the delay by treating the ground of bad health of one of the partner as reason for delay of 5 months in filing the appeal as not genuine by completely ignoring the facts and circumstances, explanations, evidences filed and on record and also the principles of natural justice and the case law as relied upon by the appellant."
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of assessment, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The same was barred by five months. The CIT(A) dismissed the same with the following observations : "4. I have considered the matter and perused the documentary evidence submitted by the appellant in support of the Jalandhar, which showed that total lipid is 718 mg/dl (reference up to 190 mg/dl and S. Triglycerides 108 mg/dl (ref. 25 -160 mg/dl). As regards the evidence that relates to by pass surgery done at the Escorts Hospital, Delhi sometime in regards the other documents submitted the results of the pathological test that have been reproduced hereinabove clearly show that there was nothing serious about the health condition of Shri R.B.K. Choudhary, partner, as is sought to be projected by the learned counsel inasmuch as every item of pathological finding is well within the reference range. In fact, the report is way better than that of even a common man, who would show some aberrations if taken to a pathological laboratory without any complaint." The said view has been affirmed by the Tribunal.;