Case LawHigh Court › Ia No: Ga/1/2024, Ga/2/2024 Income Tax O...

Ia No: Ga/1/2024, Ga/2/2024 Income Tax Officer Ward 47 2 Kolkata v. Vivek Kumar Singh

High Court 11 Mar 2024 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Ia No: Ga/1/2024, Ga/2/2024 Income Tax Officer Ward 47 2 Kolkata v. Vivek Kumar Singh
Date of order
11 Mar 2024
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Ia No: Ga/1/2024, Ga/2/2024 Income Tax Officer Ward 47 2 Kolkata v. Vivek Kumar Singh, the High Court (2024) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
OD–23 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONORIGINAL SIDE APOT/70/2024 IA NO: GA/1/2024, GA/2/2024INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 47 2 KOLKATAVSVIVEK KUMAR SINGH BEFORE :THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYADate : 11 MARCH, 2024. Appearance :Mr. P. Dudhoria, Adv.…for appellantMr. Brijesh Kumar Singh, Adv.Mr. Om Prakash Prasad, Adv...for respondents The Court :- We have heard counsel on either side. It appears that there is a delay of 254 days in filing the appeal. We aresatisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit filled in support of thecondone delay petition and accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal iscondoned. The application for condonation of delay is allowed. The Income Tax Department is aggrieved by the order and direction issuedin WPO/1028/2023 dated 12.05.2023, by which the writ petition filed by therespondent/assessee was partly allowed/disposed of on the ground that theapproval for reopening the assessment was not obtained from the specifiedauthority. Thus, the factual position appears to be not in dispute in the appealfiled by the revenue except placing reliance on a circular instruction issued bythe CBDT. Though, there may be a circular issued by the CBDT the same didnot bind the assessee and it would bind the revenue alone. In any event, the learned Single Bench, has not set aside the entire proceeding but has grantedliberty to the appellant department to proceed further in accordance with lawfrom the stage in which the irregularity has been committed after takingapproval from the specified committee. Therefore, we find that there is no groundmade out by the appellant for interfering with the order passed by the learnedSingle Bench. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant department shall rectify the irregularity obtaining theapproval from the specified authority within two weeks from the date of receiptof server copy in accordance with law. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM)CHIEF JUSTICE (SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan