PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13 KOLKATA vs. RAHUL PANDEY

PDF · subscribers
ITAT/174/2025HC CalcuttaWBCHCO003408202518 September 2025Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING),HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the revenue to withdraw it. The court clarified that the withdrawal would not prevent the revenue from taking appropriate steps in accordance with law.

What were the facts?

The revenue department filed an appeal against an ITAT order that quashed an assessment order for lack of approval for reopening the case. The department later sought correction of the ITAT order, which was also dismissed. The revenue then sought to withdraw the appeal as the approval was subsequently found.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order was bad for want of approval for reopening and whether the ITAT order was correct in dismissing the miscellaneous application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 151,Section 250,Section 254(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD-2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE

ITAT/174/2025 IA NO: GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13 KOLKATA VS RAHUL PANDEY

BEFORE: The Hon’ble CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) SOUMEN SEN The Hon’ble JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY Date: 18th September, 2025.

APPEARANCE : Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kr. Agrahari, Adv. …for the appellant.

1.

Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record. 2. There is a delay of 443 days in filing the appeal. 3. As sufficient cause has been shown for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The application being IA No. GA/1/2025 is allowed and disposed of.

5.

Challenging the orders dated 14th December, 2023 and 21st October, 2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Kolkata in I.T.A. No. 516/Kol/2021 and M.A. No. 21/Kol/2024 respectively for the assessment year 2012-13, the instant appeal has been filed. 6. In an appeal filed by the assessee from the order dated 22nd October, 2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre under Section

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) the Tribunal by its order dated 14th December, 2023 by noting that the revenue department could not produce the copy of the approval granted by the competent authority for reopening the assessee’s case, despite being afforded with repeated opportunity had while observing that the impugned assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the said Act, was bad for want of approval, had quashed the same. 7. Later the Department filed a miscellaneous application under Section 254(2) of the said Act with a prayer for correction of mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal pronounced on 14th December, 2023 for the assessment year 2012-13. By order dated 21st October, 2024, the Tribunal had opined, the application does not reveal that any mistake apparent on the record in the order of the Tribunal dated 14th December, 2023 and accordingly had dismissed the same. 8. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, we find that admittedly, the approval under Section 151 of the said Act was not placed before the Tribunal when the order dated 14th December, 2023 was passed as has been noted in paragraph 5 of the stay petition. It was for the revenue department to place the approval before the Tribunal. 9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of approval which could not be produced with the file before the tribunal was subsequently traced out and leave may be given to the appellant to file a review. The appellant seeks to withdraw the appeal.

10.

The appeal being ITAT/174/2025 and the connected application being GA/2/2025 are dismissed as withdrawn. 11. The order shall not prevent to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 12. We make it clear that the above order shall not be construed to have dealt with the merits of this case.

[SOUMEN SEN, CJ(ACTING.)]

(RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.)

KB/mg

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →