Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-2, Kolkata v. M/S. Imax Infrastructure Private Limtied
High Court
26 Jun 2023 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-2, Kolkata v. M/S. Imax Infrastructure Private Limtied
Date of order
26 Jun 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-2, Kolkata v. M/S. Imax Infrastructure Private Limtied, the High Court (2023) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Accordingly, the applications are dismissed and 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 – 6
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction [Income Tax] ORIGINAL SIDE
ITAT/132/2023
IA NO.GA/1/2023, GA/2/2023
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA
-Versus-
M/S. IMAX INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMTIED
BEFORE : THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA Date : 26[th] June, 2023
Appearance :Mr.Swapna Das, Adv. Mr.Siddharth Das, Adv., for the appellant. Ms.Smita Das De, Adv. ..for the respondent.
The Court : We have heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Ms. Swapna Das and Mr. Siddharth Das, learned advocates appearing for the respondent/assessee.
There is a delay of 1322 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the affidavit in support of the petition and we find that sufficient cause has not been shown for preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. Further, the delay is
inordinate and unexplained and, therefore, no discretion can be exercised in favour of the appellant/revenue.
Accordingly, the applications are dismissed and the appeal stands rejected.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE
S.Das/
(AJAY KUMAR GUPTA, 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.