COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA - II vs. MERCURY TRAVELS LIMITED
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal after being satisfied with the reasons provided in the revenue's affidavit. Subsequently, the revenue's counsel submitted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the threshold limit specified in a CBDT circular. Recording this submission, the Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of low tax effect. As a consequence of the dismissal on this procedural ground, the substantial questions of law that were raised in the appeal were left open and not decided on merits. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.
What were the facts?
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-II (the revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court at Calcutta against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Kolkata. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The respondent in the appeal was Mercury Travels Limited (the assessee). The revenue sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which was granted. Subsequently, the revenue's counsel, on instructions, submitted that the tax effect in the appeal was below the threshold limit stipulated in a CBDT circular.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act should be admitted, considering the delay in filing. 2. Whether the appeal should be dismissed on the ground of low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars. The revenue argued that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and subsequently, that the appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect, citing a CBDT circular. The assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
OD-2 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE
ITA 183 of 2009 IA No.GA 1 of 2009 (Old No. GA 1804 of 2009)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II VERSUS MERCURY TRAVELS LIMITED
BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM AND The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 4th January, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …for the appellant.
Mr. Soham Sen, Adv. ...for the respondent.
The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata. We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Soham Sen, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. We are satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. Accordingly, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application being IA No.GA 1 of 2009(Old No.GA 1804 of 2009) for condonation of delay stands allowed.
The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue on instructions from the department submitted that the tax effect in this appeal is below the threshold limit stipulated in the circular issued by the CBDT. Recording the said submission, the appeal stands dismissed on the ground of low tax effect. Consequently, substantial questions of law which have been raised are left open.
(T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
s.pal/pkd
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Ritik vs. State Of M.P.Madhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
