Case LawHigh Court › Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2,...

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Kolkata v. Ambuja Neotia Healthcare Venture Limited

High Court 12 Sep 2025 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Kolkata v. Ambuja Neotia Healthcare Venture Limited
Date of order
12 Sep 2025
Assessment year(s)
2015-16
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Kolkata v. Ambuja Neotia Healthcare Venture Limited, the High Court (2025) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: 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-1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/171/2025 IA NO: GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, KOLKATA VS AMBUJA NEOTIA HEALTHCARE VENTURE LIMITED BEFORE : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM -A N D- HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) DATE : 12[th] September, 2025 Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Ankan Das, Adv. Ms. Shradhya Ghosh, Adv. …for appellant Mr. Saumya Kejriwal, Adv. Mr. Debarghya Banerjee, Adv. …for respondent nos.1&2 The Court : This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) challenging the order dated 21.08.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A. No. 643/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2015-16. There is a delay in filing the appeal. The department has computed the delay at 229 days. It is pointed out by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents that there is an error in calculation since the date on which the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal was received by the department has been wrongly noted as 5.9.2024, whereas the correct date is 5.9.2023 and if the said date is reckoned, there is a delay of 595 days. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition and we find no acceptable reasons for the inordinate delay and as the delay remains unexplained, we are not persuaded to exercise any discretion in favour of the appellant/department. In another appeal relating to the very same assessee in ITAT 169 of 2025, there was also a delay of 595 days and the prayer for condonation of delay was rejected by order dated 10.9.2025. For the above reasons, since the delay has not been explained, the same cannot be condoned. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay, IA No: GA 1 of 2025, is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands rejected. The stay application, IA No: GA 2 of 2025, also stands rejected. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ. ) (CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)
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