Case LawHigh Court › Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1,...

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Kolkata v. The Peerless General Finance And Investment Co. Ltd

High Court 31 Jan 2024 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Kolkata v. The Peerless General Finance And Investment Co. Ltd
Date of order
31 Jan 2024
Assessment year(s)
2001-02
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Kolkata v. The Peerless General Finance And Investment Co. Ltd, the High Court (2024) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Accordingly, the application is dismissed and consequently, the appeal stands rejected.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

OD – 11 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax] ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/193/2023 IA NO: GA/1/2023, GA/2/2023 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, KOLKATA VS THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO. LTD. BEFORE : THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYADate : 31[st] January, 2024 Appearance :Mr.Tilak Mitra, Adv. ...for the appellant. Mr.J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr.Akhilesh Gupta, Adv. ..for the respondent. The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging the order dated 31[st] October, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A-Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.1195/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2001-02. There is a delay of 1582 days in filing the appeal. The respondent/assessee has filed their affidavit in opposition. As rightly pointed out in the said affidavit in opposition no explanation has been offered for substantial period of the delay, namely, 25[th] April, 2019 and 9[th] March, 2022. Apart from that, the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application is sketchy with no particulars. Therefore, we are not persuaded to exercise any discretion in favour of the appellant/revenue. Accordingly, the application is dismissed and consequently, the appeal stands rejected. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM) (CHIEF JUSTICE) (SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.) S.Das/
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan