Principal Commissioner Of Incometax-5, Kolkata v. Shri Sunil Kumar Ladha
High Court
05 Sep 2022 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Incometax-5, Kolkata v. Shri Sunil Kumar Ladha
Date of order
05 Sep 2022
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Principal Commissioner Of Incometax-5, Kolkata v. Shri Sunil Kumar Ladha, the High Court (2022) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In the result, theapplication for condonation of delay (GA/1/2022) is dismissed.Consequently, the appeal stands rejected keeping the substantialquestions of law left open.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
ITAT/102/2022IA 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-
SHRI SUNIL KUMAR LADHA
Appearance:Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv....for the appellant.
Ms. Swapna Das, Adv.Mr. Siddhartha Das, Adv....for the respondent.
BEFORE:
The Hon’ble JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
-And-
The Hon’ble JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA
Date : 5[th] September, 2022.
The Court : We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learnedstanding counsel for the appellant and Ms. Swapna Das and Mr.Siddhartha Das, learned Advocates for the respondent.
There is a delay of 1184 days in filing the appeal. Onperusal of the affidavit in support of the application forcondonation of delay, we find no cause much less sufficient causehas been shown for condonation of the inordinate delay. Asrightly pointed out by the respondent/assessee, the averments areabsolutely vague, bereft of particulars. The delay is more than
three years and fifteen months. There is no convincingexplanation for not being able to prefer the appeal within theperiod of limitation.
Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances ofthe case, we are of the view that no discretion can be exercisedin favour of the appellant/department. In the result, theapplication for condonation of delay (GA/1/2022) is dismissed.Consequently, the appeal stands rejected keeping the substantialquestions of law left open.
The connected application for stay (GA/2/2022) alsostands closed.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
(SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA, J.)
S.Das/As.
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.