Principal Commissioner Of Incometax-5, Kolkata v. Ram Niwas Taparia

ITAT/9/2022IA No.GA/1/2022IA No.GA/2/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASpecial Jurisdiction (Income Tax)ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-5, KOLKATA -Versus- RAM NIWAS TAPARIA Appearance:Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv....for the appellant. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -And- The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 1[st] August, 2022. The Court : We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learnedstanding counsel for the appellant/revenue. It is submitted by the learned standing counsel that thematter concerns penny stocks and this Court in a batch of caseshas allowed the revenue’s appeal. From the material papers wefind that the alleged fictitious long term capital gains isRs.3,35,491/- which was claimed as exemption from tax. Though itis right that we have allowed a batch of appeals by revenue, yetwhile considering an application under Section 5 of the Act, we are to take note of several factors. We are also conscious of thefact that we have condoned longer period of delay in similar pennystock cases. However, in the instant case, we find that theassessee’s alleged fictitious long term capital gain isRs.3,35,491/-. If the case was not one of penny stock, therevenue could not have filed an appeal because the tax effect inthis case is only Rs.64,800/- . Therefore, we make slightdeparture from our earlier view and note that the delay isinordinate of 991 days in filing the appeal. There is nosufficient explanation. Therefore, we refuse to exercise our discretion andreject the application for condone of delay. Thus, IANo.GA/1/2022 is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue(ITAT/9/2022) stands rejected. It is made clear that this ordershall not be treated as a precedent as it has been passedconsidering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.Consequently, the application for stay (IA No.GA/2/2022)also stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) S.Das/As.