PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1,KOLKATA vs. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITAT/193/2023HC CalcuttaWBCHCO004153202331 January 2024Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found the affidavit supporting the delay condonation application to be sketchy and lacking particulars. No adequate explanation was provided for a substantial period of the delay.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal before the High Court challenging an ITAT order. There was a significant delay of 1582 days in filing the appeal. The assessee opposed the delay condonation application.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned based on the provided explanation and affidavit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

OD – 11 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax] ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/193/2023 IA NO: GA/1/2023, GA/2/2023 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, KOLKATA VS THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO. LTD.

BEFORE : THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM

And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA Date : 31st January, 2024

Appearance : Mr.Tilak Mitra, Adv. ...for the appellant.

Mr.J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr.Akhilesh Gupta, Adv. ..for the respondent.

The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging the order dated 31st October, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A-Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.1195/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2001-02. There is a delay of 1582 days in filing the appeal. The respondent/assessee has filed their affidavit in opposition. As rightly pointed out in the said affidavit in opposition no explanation has been offered for substantial period of the delay, namely, 25th April, 2019 and 9th March, 2022. Apart from that, the affidavit filed in support of the

condone delay application is sketchy with no particulars. Therefore, we are not persuaded to exercise any discretion in favour of the appellant/revenue. Accordingly, the application is dismissed and consequently, the appeal stands rejected.

(T.S. SIVAGNANAM)

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

(SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.) S.Das/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →