Itat/14/2021 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 14 Kolkata v. M/S Kalpana Biri Mfg Co Pvt Ltd
High Court
07 Apr 2022 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Itat/14/2021 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 14 Kolkata v. M/S Kalpana Biri Mfg Co Pvt Ltd
Date of order
07 Apr 2022
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itat/14/2021 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 14 Kolkata v. M/S Kalpana Biri Mfg Co Pvt Ltd, the High Court (2022) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Consequently,the appeal along with the application for stay also stands rejected.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
ORDER SHEET
IA NO.GA/2/2021; IA NO.GA/1/2021IN ITAT/14/2021IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION(INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF I.T., CENTRAL-14, KOLKATA-VS-M/S KALPANA BIRI MFG. CO. PVT. LTD.
BEFORE:
HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMANDHON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADATE: 7 APRIL 2022.
Mr. T. Mitra, Adv., for appellant/petitioner.Mr.Ms. S. Das, Adv.; Mr. S. Das, Adv., for respondent.
The Court: Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.
There is a delay of 1030 days in filing the appeal. The Department received the
copy of the order passed by the learned Tribunal on December 4, 2017. However, the appealwas filed on January 27, 2021.
The respondent-assessee would vehemently oppose the delay and the affidavit-
in-opposition has been filed.
We find that there is absolutely no explanation for the inordinate delay of more
than 21 months. The affidavit filed by the Department attempting to explain the delay is far
from satisfactory. There are several periods of delay for which there is no explanation
given by the Department.
Therefore, we are unable to convince ourselves to exercise any discretion in the
case at hand.
Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently,the appeal along with the application for stay also stands rejected. In these circumstances, thesubstantial questions of law which have been proposed by the Revenue are left open.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
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.