PRINCIPAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX 9, KOLKATA vs. I S LEATHER

PDF · subscribers
ITA/12/2021HC CalcuttaWBCHCO000018202120 April 2021Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE I. P. MUKERJI,HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, while noting that it was not fully convinced with the reasons provided by the Revenue for the enormous delay of 979 days, decided not to adopt a technical approach. The Court observed that the impugned ITAT order dismissed the Revenue's appeal by following the assessee's own case for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. It was also noted that the Revenue had previously withdrawn appeals against the ITAT's orders for those years due to the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, to consider the correctness of the ITAT's decision, the matter needed to be heard on its merits. The Court exercised its discretion to condone the delay to allow the appeal to be considered. The application for condonation of delay was allowed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata) filed an application (IA No.GA 1 of 2021) before the High Court at Calcutta seeking condonation of a delay of 979 days in filing an appeal against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT's order, which was impugned, had dismissed the Revenue's appeal following the assessee's (Damodar Valley Corporation) own case for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The assessee's counsel stated that the Revenue had previously filed appeals against the ITAT's orders for those assessment years, but these appeals were withdrawn because the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 979 days in filing the appeal by the Revenue should be condoned, considering the reasons provided. Assessee's Contention: The Revenue's appeals against the ITAT's orders for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 were withdrawn because the assessee had approached the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Revenue's Contention: Not explicitly recorded, but the application for condonation of delay implies a desire to have the appeal heard on merits.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 OD-43 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income tax) ORIGINAL SIDE IA No.GA 1 of 2021 In ITAT 12 of 2021 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA Vs DAMODAR VALLEY CORPORATION BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM AND The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 3rd December, 2021. Appearance: Mr. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Arunava Ganguly, Adv. …for the appellant. Mr. Rahul Tangri, Adv. Mr. Deepro Sen, Adv. …for the respondent. The Court : This application has been filed by the Revenue to condone the delay of 979 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the averments made in the said affidavit and we are not fully convinced with the reasons assigned by the appellant/Revenue for condonation of enormous delay of 979 days. However, we are not inclined to take a technical approach in the matter and we have perused the order which has been impugned in this appeal passed by the Tribunal. We find that the appeal was dismissed following the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2008-09 and 2009- 10. It is submitted by Mr. Rahul Tangri, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that the Revenue has preferred appeals as against those orders

2 but those appeals were withdrawn on the ground that the assessee has approached under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme. Therefore, to consider the correctness of the decision impugned before us necessarily the matter has to be heard on merits. We are inclined to exercise discretion and condone the delay so that the appeal itself can be taken up for consideration. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application being IA No.GA 1 of 2021 is allowed. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) s.pal/pa.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →