PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5, KOLKATA vs. RAM NIWAS TAPARIA
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court refused to condone the inordinate delay in filing the appeal, noting the low tax effect and lack of justification. Consequently, the appeal and stay application were rejected.
What were the facts?
The revenue appealed a decision concerning alleged fictitious long-term capital gains from penny stocks amounting to Rs. 3,35,491/-. The revenue filed the appeal with an inordinate delay of 991 days without sufficient explanation.
What were the issues?
Whether to condone an inordinate delay in filing an appeal by the revenue, considering the tax effect and the nature of the case (penny stocks).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
O-8 ITAT/9/2022 IA No.GA/1/2022 IA No.GA/2/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA -Versus- RAM NIWAS TAPARIA Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv. ...for the appellant. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 1st August, 2022. The Court : We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue. It is submitted by the learned standing counsel that the matter concerns penny stocks and this Court in a batch of cases has allowed the revenue’s appeal. From the material papers we find that the alleged fictitious long term capital gains is Rs.3,35,491/- which was claimed as exemption from tax. Though it is right that we have allowed a batch of appeals by revenue, yet while considering an application under Section 5 of the Act, we
2 are to take note of several factors. We are also conscious of the fact that we have condoned longer period of delay in similar penny stock cases. However, in the instant case, we find that the assessee’s alleged fictitious long term capital gain is Rs.3,35,491/-. If the case was not one of penny stock, the revenue could not have filed an appeal because the tax effect in this case is only Rs.64,800/- . Therefore, we make slight departure from our earlier view and note that the delay is inordinate of 991 days in filing the appeal. There is no sufficient explanation. Therefore, we refuse to exercise our discretion and reject the application for condone of delay.
Thus, IA No.GA/1/2022 is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue (ITAT/9/2022) stands rejected. It is made clear that this order shall not be treated as a precedent as it has been passed considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Consequently, the application for stay (IA No.GA/2/2022) also stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) S.Das/As.
More judgments on Section 5
- Sarmistha Dey, Hooghly, West Bengal vs Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1), Hoogly…ITA 2864/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- Sarmistha Dey, Hooghly, West Bengal vs Income Tax Officer Ward 24(1), Hoogly…ITA 2863/KOL/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
- Jiban Kumar Saha, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 52(1), KolkataITA 2851/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- Jiban Kumar Saha, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 52(1), KolkataITA 2850/KOL/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
- Subhasish Bhattacharya, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 52(1), KolkataITA 2849/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026