Itat/156/2025 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 Kolkata v. M/S Bds Foods Private Limited
High Court
28 Aug 2025 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Itat/156/2025 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 Kolkata v. M/S Bds Foods Private Limited
Date of order
28 Aug 2025
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itat/156/2025 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 Kolkata v. M/S Bds Foods Private Limited, the High Court (2025) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Consequently, the appeal 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
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE
ITAT /156/2025
IA NO: GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KOLKATA -VS- M/S BDS FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED
BEFORE :
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) Dated: August 28, 2025.
Appearance:Mr. Aryak Dutt, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Ankan Das, Adv. Ms. Shradhya Ghosh, Adv. ..for the Appellant
THE COURT: Though the respondent has been served but none appears on behalf of the respondent.
There is a delay of 497 days in filing the appeal.
The impugned order was passed by the Learned Tribunal on 16[th]October, 2023.
Certified copy of the order was received by the Income Tax Department on 29.11.2023. The appeal ought to have been filed on or before 27.03.2024 but that was filed on 07.08.2025 and after deducting 120 days the time provided for filing the appeal, there is a delay of 497 days in filing the appeal.
We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay and we find that the reasons stated therein do not
qualify as sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. For such reasons, the application being GA/1/2025 is dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal stands rejected. Substantial questions of law as suggested are left open.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ.)
(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)
sm/sp3
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.