Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central - 1, Kolkata v. M/S. Gujarat Nre Coke Limited
High Court
16 Jan 2023 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central - 1, Kolkata v. M/S. Gujarat Nre Coke Limited
Date of order
16 Jan 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central - 1, Kolkata v. M/S. Gujarat Nre Coke Limited, the High Court (2023) 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
OD–3
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE
ITAT/263/2022 IA NO. GA/1/2022, GA/2/2022
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL - 1, KOLKATA VS.
M/s. GUJARAT NRE COKE LIMITED
BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 16[th] January, 2023
Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. ….for the appellant. Ms Shalini Basu, Adv. … for the respondent.
The Court : We have heard respective counsel for the either side.
It appears that there is a delay of 944 days in filing the appeal. The certified copy of the order passed by the learned Tribunal was received by the department on 18.12.2019 but the appeal was filed before this Court only on 28.11.2022. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, we find that though the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (3), Kolkata approved the filing of appeal as early as on 21.2.2020, the appeal was filed on 28.11.2022. One of the reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition that there was a restructuring in the department and the case was transferred to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (1), Kolkata on 20.10.2020 and it is thereafter the action was taken. Admittedly, the period of limitation for filing the appeal expired much prior to the outbreak
of Covid and the imposition of lockdown. In any event, the restructuring of the department can hardly be a reason in not preferring the appeal within the period especially when the approval for filing an appeal given by the PCIT (3) much prior to the date of restructuring. Thus, we find that sufficient cause has not been shown for condonation of the inordinate delay for 944 days.
For the above reason, the condone delay petition is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands rejected. The stay application also stands dismissed.
Substantial questions of law as suggested by the revenue are left open.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
s.pal/GH.
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.