IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.No. 733 of 2011 ( ) ====================== (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ITA.76/2010 DATED 22-10-2010) REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT ============================= JOSE CYRIAC, 42/2183 S.R.M.ROAD ERNAKULAM KOCHI-25. BY ADV.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ======================== THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL COCHIN-682 018. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SC SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.28.3.2003 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3), ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.1.9.2005 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, KOCHI. ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. ANNEXURE E: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.2.5.2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... R.P. No.733 of 2011 in I.T.A. No.76 of 2010 and C.M. Appn. No.492 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 8th day of December, 2011. ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. Review Petition is filed with an inordinate delay of 300 days. Senior counsel appearing for respondents opposed the delay condonation petition and pointed out that SLP filed against judgment under review was dismissed by the Supreme Court and review petitioner himself has produced the order in the SLP. Since the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, we do not find any scope for entertaining review. Consequently there is no merit neither in the Review Petition nor in the delay condonation petition. Both are accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms