PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 KOLKATA vs. M/S WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it dismissed the revenue's appeal, holding that it was a sequel to a previous order where the revenue's appeal was already dismissed. The substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue.
What were the facts?
The revenue filed an appeal against an ITAT order concerning assessment year 2008-09. There was a significant delay in filing this appeal. The ITAT order itself arose from a revisional order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263.
What were the issues?
Whether the ITAT was justified in quashing the revisional order under Section 263, and whether the appeal involved substantial revenue and audit objections.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
OD-10 ITAT/46/2021 IA No.GA/1/2021 IA No.GA/2/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOLKATA -Versus- M/S. WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO. LTD. Appearance: Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Adv. Mr. Anurag Roy, Adv. ...for the appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv. Mr. Anuj Mishra, Adv. ...for the respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 12th April, 2022. The Court : We have heard Mr. Vipul Kumdalia, learned standing counsel assisted by Mr. Anurag Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pranit Bag and Mr. Anuj Mishra, learned Advocates for the respondent. There is a delay of 328 days in filing the appeal. On perusal of the relevant dates we find that the appellant/revenue would be entitled to the benefit of the order passed by the
2 Hon’ble Supreme Court extending the period of limitation for filing of appeal under various enactments. For such reasons, the application for condonation of delay (IA No.GA/1/2021) is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Re: ITAT/46/2021: This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directed against the order dated 18th December, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata (the ‘Tribunal’ in short) ITA No.1261/Kol/2018 for the assessment year 2008-09. The revenue has framed for the following substantial questions of law for consideration: “a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law confirming the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) who relied the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.1005(Kol) of 2013 but Learned Tribunal ignoring the fact that the Department has already filed appeal before the Hon’ble Court against the said order ? b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that the case involved substantial amount of revenue as well as audit objection ? c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the revisional order under section 263 of the Act passed by Commissioner of Income Tax ?” We have heard Mr. Vipul Kundalia, learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue.
3 The order impugned in this appeal passed by the tribunal arises out of an order of assessment passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kolkata dated 3rd March, 2014 under Section 263 read with Section 143(3) of the Act. As against the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act, the matter travelled to the tribunal and thereafter before this Court in ITAT No.155/2017. By judgment dated 13th December, 2021 the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed and the substantial questions of law were answered against the revenue. The present proceedings being a sequel to the order passed under Section 263 has to be necessarily rejected in the light of the order in ITAT/155/2017. For the above reasons, the appeal filed by the revenue (ITAT/46/2021) is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue. Consequently, the connected application for stay IA No.GA/2/2021 stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) S.Pal/As.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026