Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 2 Kolkata v. M/S Asiatic Oxygen Ltd
High Court
31 Jan 2024 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 2 Kolkata v. M/S Asiatic Oxygen Ltd
Date of order
31 Jan 2024
Assessment year(s)
2011-12
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 2 Kolkata v. M/S Asiatic Oxygen 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 – 9
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax]
ORIGINAL SIDE
ITAT/12/2024 IA NO: GA/1/2024, GA/2/2024
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA VS M/S ASIATIC OXYGEN LTD
BEFORE : THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYADate : 31[st] January, 2024
Appearance :Mr.Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ...for the appellant. Mr.S.M. Surana, 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 1[st] July, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A-Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.714/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2011-12. There is a delay of 1503 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application and we find that there is absolutely no explanation for the inordinate delay. Thus, in the absence of any acceptable explanation and in the absence of sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of
limitation, 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)
S.Das/
(SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.)
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.