PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1,KOLKATA vs. NABA DIGANTA WATER MANAGEMENT LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
ITAT/233/2023HC CalcuttaWBCHCO004853202313 December 2023Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the explanation for the inordinate delay was unsatisfactory. It further noted that the benefit of the Supreme Court's order on limitation due to Covid-19 was not applicable as the original limitation period had expired much prior to the extension. The Court also found that the ITAT had re-appreciated the facts and affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, which was factually stronger than a cited precedent.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Department filed an appeal before the High Court with a delay of 1368 days. The delay occurred despite the ITAT order being passed on August 9, 2019, and the certified copy being received on September 2, 2019. The department sought condonation of delay, citing the Supreme Court's extension of limitation due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned, and if the ITAT's order, which affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision after re-appreciating facts, is sustainable.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

O 3 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/233/2023 IA NO: GA/1/2023, GA/2/2023 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1,KOLKATA VS NABA DIGANTA WATER MANAGEMENT LIMITED BEFORE : THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 13th December, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …for appellant Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Kejriwal, Adv. …for respondent The Court : - Heard learned Counsel on either side. There is a delay of 1368 days in filing the appeal. The order impugned which was passed in the present appeal dated 9th August, 2019 and the certified copy of the order was received by the income tax department on 2.9.2019 and the appeal has been filed before this Court on 29.9.2023 and there is a delay of 1368 days. As rightly submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent assessee the condone delay application does not give any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay. The appellant department cannot take advantage of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court extending the period of limitation on account of Covid 19 Pandemic since the period of

2 limitation for filing the appeal within the time expired much prior to the date on which the benefit of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was given. Furthermore, we find that the Tribunal has affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals I, Calcutta (CITA) after re-appreciating the factual position more particularly the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the respondent/assessee and a State Government undertaking. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent/assessee has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Limited , 2021 436 ITR 323 (Mad). We note that the factual position in the case on hand is much better than the factual position which was taken note of in the decision referred to above. Thus we are of the view that the inordinate delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. Accordingly, the application is dismissed and consequently the appeal stands rejected and the substantial questions of law which have been raised are left open. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM)

CHIEF JUSTICE

(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) Pkd/GH.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →