COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) -III KOLKATA vs. MAN MOHAN MALL
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the revenue's appeal after finding sufficient cause shown in the affidavit. However, the Court noted that the tax effect of the appeal, even if the revenue succeeded, would be less than Rs.1 crore. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of on the ground of low tax effect. The substantial question of law raised by the revenue was left open and not decided on merits. No operative directions were issued regarding the business loss claim itself.
What were the facts?
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) – III, Kolkata (the revenue) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata. The appeal was filed for the assessment year 2003-04. The revenue's appeal was delayed by sixty days, and a condonation of delay petition was filed. The High Court perused the affidavit supporting the condonation petition and found sufficient cause for the delay, thus allowing the petition.
What were the issues?
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of business loss on account of sale of share for the sum of Rs.38,40,280/- on the basis of additional ground taken by the assessee in course of appellate proceeding? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The revenue raised the substantial question of law concerning the Tribunal's allowance of a business loss claim on share sale based on an additional ground taken by the assessee. However, the revenue also acknowledged that even if it succeeded in the appeal, the tax effect would be less than Rs.1 crore, implying it might not be maintainable under certain revenue guidelines.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 OD-14 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/324/2009 IA NO. GA/1/2009 (OLD NO. GA/2939/2009) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) – III, KOLKATA Vs. MAN MOHAN MALL BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM AND The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 9th February 2023. Appearance: Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. …for the appellant. GA/1/2009( OLD NO. GA/2939/2009) The Court : Heard learned Counsel for either side. It appears that this appeal filed by the revenue is time barred and it is delayed by a period of sixty days. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the condonation of delay petition and we find sufficient cause has been shown for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Hence, the delay is condoned and the application is allowed. ITA/324/2009 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 23.04.2009 passed by
2 the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in I.T. (S.S).A.No. 95/Kol/2008 for the assessment year 2003-04. The revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration :- “(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of business loss on account of sale of share for the sum of Rs.38,40,280/- on the basis of additional ground taken by the assessee in course of appellate proceeding ?” As could be seen from the substantial question of law raised by the respondent that even assuming the revenue succeeds in this appeal the tax effect will be less than Rs.1 crore and, therefore, the revenue cannot pursue this appeal. Hence, the appeal stands disposed of on the ground of low tax effect and the substantial question of law is left open. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) R bhar/GH.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
