Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Kolkata v. M/S. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd
High Court
15 Feb 2022 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Kolkata v. M/S. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd
Date of order
15 Feb 2022
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Kolkata v. M/S. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd, the High Court (2022) 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.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE
IA No. GA 1 of 2020 in ITAT 58 of 2020
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA Vs M/S. HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD.
AND
IA No. GA 2 of 2020 in ITAT 58 of 2020
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KOLKATA
Vs M/S. HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD.
BEFORE :
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
Date : 15[th] February, 2022
Appearance:Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Arunava Ganguly, Adv. ...for the appellant. Mr. Ajay Gaggar, Adv. …for the respondent.
The Court : We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standing counsel assisted by Mr. Arunava Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Ajay Gaggar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee.
There is a delay of 440 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. It is stated that the
files are moving from one table to another, there is no explanation also for the inordinate delay. The appellant being the Income Tax Department cannot be granted any concession with regard to law of limitation. Therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application being IA No.GA 1 of 2020 is dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal stands rejected.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
s.pal/pkd.
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.