Itat/34/2023 Ga/1/2023, Ga/2/2023 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-13, Kolkata v. There Is A Delay Of 1258 Days In Filing The Appeal
High Court
15 Mar 2023 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Itat/34/2023 Ga/1/2023, Ga/2/2023 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-13, Kolkata v. There Is A Delay Of 1258 Days In Filing The Appeal
Date of order
15 Mar 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Itat/34/2023 Ga/1/2023, Ga/2/2023 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-13, Kolkata v. There Is A Delay Of 1258 Days In Filing The Appeal, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: For such reason, the application (GA/1/2023) is dismissed and consequently,the appeal stands rejected.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
OD–2
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE
ITAT/34/2023GA/1/2023, GA/2/2023PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-13, KOLKATAVS.SMT. UMA JARIA
BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 15[th] March, 2023
Appearance :Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.…for appellant
The Court : - We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standingcounsel for the appellant.
There is a delay of 1258 days in filing the appeal.
We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay applicationand we find sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the inordinate delay of1258 days.
For such reason, the application (GA/1/2023) is dismissed and consequently,the appeal stands rejected. The stay application (GA/2/2023) also stands closed.
(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.
EaseValue