PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, KOLKATA vs. M/S LUXMI TOWNSHIP AND HOLDING LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, finding no sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. The Court also noted that on merits, the Revenue did not have a strong case to sustain the appeal.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court with a delay of 1501 days. The delay was attributed to the period between the Tribunal's order and the filing of the appeal. The assessee argued that the Tribunal had correctly considered the facts and that the Assessing Officer had not drawn adverse inferences during assessment.
What were the issues?
Whether the High Court should condone the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Whether the Tribunal's order, which found that the Commissioner could not have exercised jurisdiction under Section 263, was correct on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
OD-2 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/69/2024 IA NO: GA/1/2024, GA/2/2024 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, KOLKATA VS M/S LUXMI TOWNSHIP AND HOLDING LTD TILAK MITRA BEFORE : THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA DATE : 15TH MARCH, 2024. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …for appellant Mr. Soumitra Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Avra Mazumder, Adv. Mr. Samrat Das, Adv. ..for respondents. The Court :- We have heard learned Counsel on either side. There is a delay of 1501 days in filing the appeal. The order passed by the learned Tribunal impugned in this appeal is dated 9.8.2019, certified copy of which was received by the department on 2.9.2019 but the appeal has been presented before this Court only on 9.2.2024. The affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application does not set out any acceptable reasons nor there is sufficient cause shown for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent/assessee also pointed out that the Tribunal has carefully considered the factual position and has clearly pointed out that in the assessment proceedings the assessing officer issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act and details were called for and the assessee had furnished a detailed write up with regard to the nature
2 of receivables and liquidated damages and the assessing officer has not drawn any adverse inference with regard to the said query while completing the assessment under Section 143(3)of the Act dated 21.12.2016. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal was right in holding that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax could not have exercised his jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. Thus, we find on the merits also the revenue does not have a case to sustain. Thus, for the above reasons, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Thus, the appeal stands rejected. . ( T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE ( HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA,J.) pkd/GH.
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 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 Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026