Itat/77/2021 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Peerless General Finance And Investment Company Ltd
High Court
10 Dec 2021 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Itat/77/2021 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Peerless General Finance And Investment Company Ltd
Date of order
10 Dec 2021
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itat/77/2021 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Peerless General Finance And Investment Company Ltd, the High Court (2021) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Consequently, the appeal 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
OD-99 & 100
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE
ITAT/77/2021
IA No.GA/1/2021
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-1, KOLKATA
-Versus-THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE ANDINVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED
ITAT/77/2021IA No.GA/2/2021
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-1, KOLKATA -Versus-
THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE ANDINVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED
Appearance:Mr. Smarajit Roychowdhury, Adv....for the appellant.
Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.Mr. Gopal Ram Sharma, Adv....for the respondent.
BEFORE:
The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
-And- Date : 10[th] December, 2021.
The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue is grossly
delayed by a period of 587 days.
We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the
application for condonation of delay. To say the least, it isabsolutely bereft of any particulars. There is no cause shown
much less sufficient cause shown for condonation of the inordinatedelay. Affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent clearlypointed out that paragraph 5 of the condonation of delay petitionis a pre-prepared format done in a mechanical manner withoutapplication of mind.
Thus, we are not inclined to condone the delay in filingthe appeal.
Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay isdismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands rejected.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
A/s./S.Das
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.