Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(1), Kolkata v. Excel Movers Pvt. Ltd

Form No. J.(2)Item No.7Pallab/KS AR(Ct.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONAPPELLATE SIDE HEARD ON: 09.09.2025 DELIVERED ON: 09.09.2025 CORAM: THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) M.A.T. 2156 of 2024 With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 + CAN 2 of 2024 Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(1), Kolkata Versus Excel Movers Pvt. Ltd. Appearance:-Mr. Prithu Dudhoria Mr. Saurabh BagariaMr. Rites Goel ……….For the Appellant …..For the Respondent (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.) 1.Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record. 2.We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned counsel appearing for theappellant and Mr. Saurabh Bagaria alongwith Mr. Rites Goel, learnedcounsel appearing for the respondent/assessee.appellant and Mr. Saurabh Bagaria alongwith Mr. Rites Goel, learnedcounsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 3.This intra-Court appeal is filed by the Department challenging the orderpassed by the learned Single Bench dated 28[th] April, 2023 in W.P.A. 5755of 2023. There is delay of 524 days in filing the appeal.passed by the learned Single Bench dated 28[th] April, 2023 in W.P.A. 5755of 2023. There is delay of 524 days in filing the appeal. 4.We have perused the affidavit filed in support of such application and wefind that no acceptable reasons have been given for the inordinate delayexcept to state that the file kept moving from one officer to another.find that no acceptable reasons have been given for the inordinate delayexcept to state that the file kept moving from one officer to another. 5.That apart, in the impugned order, the learned Single Bench has notforeclosed the right of the Department and has granted liberty to theIncome Tax Authority to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.foreclosed the right of the Department and has granted liberty to theIncome Tax Authority to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. 6.Therefore, we failed to understand as to why the Department was aggrievedby such an order. In any event, if the Department was aggrieved, theappeal should have been filed within the period of limitation, but whereas,in the instant case, there is a delay of 524 days in filing the appeal. In theabsence of any acceptable explanation, we are not persuaded to exerciseany discretion in favour of the appellant.by such an order. In any event, if the Department was aggrieved, theappeal should have been filed within the period of limitation, but whereas,in the instant case, there is a delay of 524 days in filing the appeal. In theabsence of any acceptable explanation, we are not persuaded to exerciseany discretion in favour of the appellant. 7.Accordingly, the application being, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024 standsdismissed.dismissed. 8.Consequently, the appeal alongwith the application being, CAN 2 of 2024stand rejected.stand rejected. 9.Liberty granted by the learned Single Bench stands preserved.10.No costs.10.No costs. 11.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE I agree. (CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)