Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 13, Kolkata v. Shri Kanwarlal Agarwal
High Court
14 Feb 2022 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 13, Kolkata v. Shri Kanwarlal Agarwal
Date of order
14 Feb 2022
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 13, Kolkata v. Shri Kanwarlal Agarwal, the High Court (2022) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Accordingly, the condone delay application is dismissed.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
OD-11&12
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE
ITAT/53/2021
IA NO:GA/1/2021
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13, KOLKATAVS.SHRI KANWARLAL AGARWAL
………
ITAT/53/2021IA NO:GA/2/2021
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 13, KOLKATAVS.SHRI KANWARLAL AGARWAL
………
PRESENT:THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
AndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA14[th] February, 2022.[Video Conference]
Mr. P. K. Bhowmick, Adv…for appellant.Mr. Subash Agarwal, Adv…for respondent.
RE: IA NO:GA/1/2021
The Court: We have heard Mr. P. K. Bhowmick, learned senior standingcounsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Subash Agarwal, learned counselfor the respondent.
There is a delay of 797 days in filing this appeal. We have perused theaffidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition and we find thatsufficient cause has been shown for condonation of inordinate delay of 797days. The revenue seeks to take advantage of CBDT Circular No.23 dated
06.09.2019. In our view, the Circular cannot be relied upon by the revenue, inthe case on hand, to get over the rigor of limitation which, admittedly, expiredon 21.01.2019. It is further noted that the period between 21.01.2019, thelast date for preferring the appeal and the date of filing the appeal, i.e.,07.04.2021 has not been explained. Therefore, we are not inclined to condonethe delay. Accordingly, the condone delay application is dismissed.Consequently, the appeal stands rejected.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
pkd/spalAR(CR)
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.