Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata Ii, Kolkata v. National Insurance Company Ltd

OD-5 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/144/2011 IA No:GA/1/2011 (Old No.:GA/1561/2011)GA/2/2011 (Old No.:GA/1562/2011) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA II, KOLKATAVERSUSNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 4 MAY, 2022. Appearance:- Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv. …for Appellant Mr. Debasish Mitra, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv. … for respondent The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, for brevity) challenging the correctness of the order dated 19[th] December, 2003 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, `B’ Bench, Kolkata in ITA Nos.11(Cal)/1997 and 18(Cal)/1999 forthe assessment years 1992-93 and 1995-96. The revenue has suggested the following substantial questions of lawfor consideration :- “(a)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case theIncome Tax, Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that theinterest from Government Securities, Bonds, Debentures etc. are notliable to interest Tax without appreciating Section 2(7) of Interest Act,1974 ? (b)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case theIncome Tax, Appellate Tribunal erred in law in not holding that theinterest accrues for the entire year not broken year ?” We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned standing counselappearing for the appellant and Mr. Debasish Mitra and Mr. SiddharthaDas, learned Counsel for the respondent/assessee. We find that the appealwas barred by limitation and an application under Section 5 of theLimitation Act was filed seeking condonation of delay. The Hon’ble DivisionBench by order dated 24[th] June, 2011 directed the appellant/department topay a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the learned advocate for therespondent/assessee within a fortnight from the date of the said order.This direction was admittedly not complied with and when the matter washeard by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 25[th] July, 2011 the Court noted thesaid position and also took note of an oral prayer made on behalf of theappellant/revenue to extend the time for payment of the cost. This requestwas declined. Till date no application for extension of time has been filed bythe revenue. Therefore, we have no other option except to dismiss theapplication under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently rejectthe appeal. In the result, the GA/1/2011 (Old No. GA/1561/2011) standsdismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands rejected. However, the substantial questions of law are left open. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) SN/GH.AR(CR)