Ita/52/2021 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax1 Kol v. M/S Ganesh Realty And Mall Development

OD-11 & 12 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE IA No.GA/1/2021ITA/52/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-Versus-M/S. GANESH REALTY AND MALL DEVELOPMENT PVT. LIMITED IA No.GA/2/2021ITA/52/2021 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-Versus-M/S. GANESH REALTY AND MALL DEVELOPMENT PVT. LIMITED Appearance:Ms. Sucharita Biswas, Adv.Mr. Arunava Ganguly, Adv....for the Appellant. Mr. Ranjeet Murarka, Sr. Adv.Mr. Vivek Murarka, Adv.Mr. Dibanath Dey, Adv...for Respondent. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 7[th] March, 2022. The Court :- In terms of the order passed on the earlier occasion, two affidavits have been filed by the officers of the department attempting to 2 explain the mistakes which have occurred. There is a apology tenderedby both the officers. Third affidavit has been filed by suggesting certainsubstantial questions of law realising that the questions of law suggested inthe memorandum of appeal are not connected with the subject-matter in theappeal. The learned senior counsel for the respondent objected toamendment of the memorandum by way of an affidavit and it is submitted thatthe questions of law suggested in the memorandum of appeal are totallyirrelevant to the facts. The appeal is defective and in such a defective appealthe question of entertaining an application for condonation of delay could notarise. That apart, by a judgment dated 11[th] February, 2022 in ITAT No.66 of2021 the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed which is a common orderpassed by the tribunal for two assessment years. The learned junior standing counsel had appeared before the Courtand tendered unconditional apology for having forwarded the memorandum ofappeal which was being settled by the learned senior standing counsel. Theapology tendered by the learned junior standing counsel is accepted. Thatapart, from the office report it appears that the deficit court fees have not beenpaid by the department. Thus, considering all these facts and also noting that thevery same impugned order by the tribunal was affirmed in ITAT No.66 of 2021,we do not find any scope to consider any of the prayers made by the appellant department. Accordingly, all the applications stand dismissed. Consequently,the appeal stands rejected. Affidavits filed by the appellant be kept with the records. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) S.Das/nm.