Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-18, Kolkata v. Punam Parsuramka
High Court
25 Mar 2022 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-18, Kolkata v. Punam Parsuramka
Date of order
25 Mar 2022
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-18, Kolkata v. Punam Parsuramka, the High Court (2022) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed andconsequently, 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-5 & 6
ORDER SHEETIN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE
IA NO. GA/1/2021In ITAT/102/2021
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18, KOLKATAVsPUNAM PARSURAMKA
&
IA NO. GA/2/2021In ITAT/102/2021
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18, KOLKATAVsPUNAM PARSURAMKA
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM
And
The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
Date : 25 MARCH, 2022.
Appearance:Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv.…For the Appellant
Mr. Subhas Agarwal, Adv.…For the Respondent
GA No.1/2021
The Court : This application has been filed by the revenue to condone thedelay of 614 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal passed the order on 26[th]
June, 2019, certified copy of which was received by the Department on 25[th] July,2019. The appeal was presented on 28[th] July, 2021. The revenue seeks to takeumbrage under the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court extending theperiod of limitation.
From the dates noted above, the revenue will not be entitled to the benefitof the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Furthermore, from theaffidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, we find noreasons, much less satisfactory reasons, to condone the inordinate delay of 614days.
Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed andconsequently, the appeal is rejected.
With the dismissal of the appeal, the connected stay application being GANo.2/2021 stands closed.
(T. S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
S.De/SN
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.