Itat/8/2023 Ga/1/2023, Ga/2/2023 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 5, Kolkata v. Dr. Arup Kumar Agarwala
High Court
17 Feb 2023 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Itat/8/2023 Ga/1/2023, Ga/2/2023 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 5, Kolkata v. Dr. Arup Kumar Agarwala
Date of order
17 Feb 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itat/8/2023 Ga/1/2023, Ga/2/2023 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 5, Kolkata v. Dr. Arup Kumar Agarwala, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Thus weare not persuaded to exercise any discretion in favour of the appellant/revenue.Consequently, the application stands dismissed and the appeal is 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–4
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE
ITAT/8/2023GA/1/2023, GA/2/2023PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5, KOLKATAVS.DR. ARUP KUMAR AGARWALA
BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 17 FEBRUARY, 2023
Appearance :Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.…for appellantMr. S. M. Surana, Adv.…for respondent
The Court : - Heard learned Counsel for the either side.The respondent has been served and an affidavit-of-service has been filed.There is a delay of 1141 days in filing the appeal.
On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the petition we find sufficient causehas not been shown for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Furtherwe note that the department has taken the decision to pursue the appeal much after thedecision of this Court in PCIT-5 SWATI BAJAJ 2022 SCC ONLINE CAL 1572. Thus weare not persuaded to exercise any discretion in favour of the appellant/revenue.Consequently, the application stands dismissed and the appeal is rejected.
(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