Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 2 Kolkata v. Esco Engineering Pvt Ltd
High Court
18 Jun 2025 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 2 Kolkata v. Esco Engineering Pvt Ltd
Date of order
18 Jun 2025
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 2 Kolkata v. Esco Engineering Pvt Ltd, the High Court (2025) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Consequently, the appeal stands rejected and the substantial questions of law as suggested by the revenue are left open.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
SPECIAL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE
ITAT/115/2025
IA NO: GA/1/2025, GA/2/2025
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 2 KOLKATA VS ESCO ENGINEERING PVT LTD
BEFORE : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM -A N D- HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) DATE : 18[th] June, 2025.
Appearance:- Mr. Samarjit Roy Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. … for the appellant.
The Court : We have heard Mr. Samarjit Roy Chowdhury, learned standing Counsel assisted by Mr. Amit Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant.
Though the respondent has been served, however none appears for the respondent. The first hurdle the Department has to cross is with regard to delay in filing the appeal. The impugned order was passed by the Tribunal on 2[nd] March, 2022 and the certified copy of the same was received by the appellant/Department on 18.05.2022 and the appeal ought to have been filed not later than 15[th ] June, 2022. However, it has been filed on 13.05.2025 and there is a delay of 971 days. The delay being inordinate and not properly explained, this Court is not convinced to exercise any discretion in favour of the appellant/Department. That apart, we find that the tax effect in this case is only Rs.82,382/-.
For the above reasons this application being GA/1/2025 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands rejected and the substantial questions of law as suggested by the revenue are left open.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE
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.