Ia No.ga/2/2021 In Itat/45/2021 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Kolkata v. M/S. Exide Industries Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO.GA/2/2021InITAT/45/2021PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, KOLKATAVS. M/S. EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD. IA NO.GA/1/2021InITAT/45/2021PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, KOLKATAVS.M/S. EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMA N DTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : February 14, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance :Mr. S.N. Dutta, Adv.… for the appellant Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Sr. Adv.Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Adv.… for the respondent The Court : We have heard Mr. S.N. Dutta, learned standingcounsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. AbhratoshMajumdar, learned senior counsel, duly assisted by Ms. NilanjanaBanerjee Pal, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. There is a delay of 843 days in filing the appeal. We haveperused the dates and events as set out in the affidavit filed insupport of the condone delay application sworn in by the PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata. To say the least there isabsolutely no explanation for the inordinate delay. As pointed out bythe learned senior counsel for the respondent, order passed by theTribunal has been given effect to by the assessing officer by passingan order dated 08.03.2019 under Section 254/144C(4) read withSection 143(3) of the Act. Copy of the order was placed before us fromwhich we find that the assessing officer has verified the facts andfigures and found that own funds were available with the assesseewhich were far more than the investment made in the tax free securityduring the year under consideration and therefore no disallowance isbeing made under Rule 8D(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Rules. It issurprising to note that the department though was aware that theorder passed by the Tribunal was implemented as early as on08.03.2019 by the assessing officer, there is absolutely no whisper ofsuch decision taken by the assessing officer in the affidavit filed insupport of the condone delay application. It would have been wellopen to the department to take note of the same and mention aboutgiving effect to an order. That apart the dates and events which havebeen mentioned in the affidavit-in-opposition by the respondent/assessee as culled out from the condone delay application filed by thedepartment shows that there is absolute lethargy on the part of thedepartment in not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Therefore, we find sufficient cause has not been shown by thedepartment to condone 843 days delay. Hence, the petition isdismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands rejected. (T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)