The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s. Dharani Sheltors Private limited

PDF · subscribers
ITTA/236/2022HC TelanganaHBHC01045543202210 August 2022Author: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay (IA No: GA/1/2022) on the grounds that sufficient cause was not shown for the inordinate delay of 1090 days. The Court also noted that the decision to file the appeal was taken much after the High Court's own decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kolkata Vs. Swati Bajaj & Ors. Consequently, the appeal itself (ITAT/236/2022) was rejected, and the application for stay (IA: GA/2/2022) was also dismissed. No specific findings were made on the merits of the ITAT's order as the appeal was not admitted.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Siliguri, filed an appeal before the High Court at Calcutta against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was filed with a delay of 1090 days. The appellant also filed an application for condonation of delay and an application for stay. The respondent is Kamal Singh Kundalia. The High Court noted that the decision to file the appeal was taken long after a relevant decision by the same Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kolkata Vs. Swati Bajaj & Ors.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should condone the inordinate delay of 1090 days in filing the appeal, as per Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, considering the facts presented in the affidavit. Contentions: Assessee (Respondent): The respondent did not file any specific arguments regarding the delay as the High Court was deciding the condonation application. However, their presence indicates opposition to the delay being condoned. Revenue (Appellant): The appellant argued that sufficient cause existed for the delay in filing the appeal, supported by an affidavit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD–9 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURI ICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE

ITAT/236/2022 IA No: GA/1/2022, GA/2/2022 BEFORE :

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM

And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 9th January, 2023

Appearance : Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. ….for appellant

Mr. Dhiraj Lakhotia, Adv. Ms. Radhika Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Aditya Mondol, Adv. …for the respondent

The Court : We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Dhiraj Lakhotia, learned advocate appearing for the respondent. There is a delay of 1090 days in filing this appeal. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition and we find that sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the inordinate delay in filing the present appeal. That apart, we find the decision to file an appeal was taken much after the decision of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kolkata Vs. Swati Bajaj & Ors., reported in 2022 SCC Online 1572. 2 For the above reason, this application being IA No:GA/1/2022 is dismissed and consequently, the appeal stands rejected. The application for stay being IA:GA/2/2022 also stands dismissed.

(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)

SN/S.Pal.

More judgments on Section 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →