PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. GOLD RUSH SALES AND SERVICES LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITAT/237/2025HC CalcuttaWBCHCO004638202518 March 2026Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ,HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The tribunal found no reason to condone the significant delay of 651 days. It noted the absence of a sufficient exception clause in the relevant circulars to justify the delay.

What were the facts?

The appellant filed an appeal with a delay of 651 days, claiming it fell under an exception clause of a circular due to the amount involved. The respondent opposed the condonation of delay, arguing the exception clause was not applicable for the relevant assessment year.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned based on the circulars and the amount involved.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD 13

ORDER SHEET ITAT/237/2025 IA NO: GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 1, KOLKATA VS GOLD RUSH SALES AND SERVICES LTD.

BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ AND The Hon’ble JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR Date: 18th March, 2026.

Appearance: Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kr. Agrahari, Adv. …for the appellant

Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. …for the respondent

The Court: Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is a delay of 651 days in filing the appeal and the amount involved in this appeal is only Rs.88,60,517/- and it falls within the exception clause vide Para No.3.1(h) of Circular No.05/2024 dated 15.03.2024 read with Circular No.9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. Learned senior counsel, Mr. Khaitan vehemently opposes the reasons given for condonation of delay and submits that the exception clause as mentioned by the learned counsel for the appellant is non-existent for the assessment year

2 2012-2013 and he relies on various circulars being Circular No.3/2018 [F. NO.279/MISC.142/2007-ITJ (PT)] dated 11.07.2018, Letter [F. NO.279/MISC.142/2007-ITJ (PT)] dated 20.08.2018 and Circular No.17/2019 [F. NO.279/MISC.142/2007-ITJ (PT)] dated 08.08.2019. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application for condonation of delay as well as the circulars being Circular No.3/2018 [F. NO.279/MISC.142/2007-ITJ (PT)] dated 11.07.2018, Letter [F. NO.279/MISC.142/2007-ITJ (PT)] dated 20.08.2018 and Circular No.17/2019 [F. NO.279/MISC.142/2007-ITJ (PT)] dated 08.08.2019. We do not find any reason to condon the delay of 651 days inasmuch as the monetary limit as prescribed in the circulars and without any sufficient exception clause as provided in the circular, we are unable to admit this appeal and therefore, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. The application for condonation of delay is also dismissed as well as the stay application being GA/2/2025.

(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.)

(UDAY KUMAR, J.)

B.Pal

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →