Principal Commissioner Ofincome Tax-5, Kolkata v. Affidavit-In-Opposition Of The Respondent/Assessee And Theaffidavit-In-Reply Filed By The Revenue

ITAT/189/2022IA No.GA/1/2022GA/2/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA -Versus- SMT. UMA PARASRAMKA BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 6[th ]February, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv.…for the appellant. Mr. Avratosh Majumdar, Sr. Adv.Mr. Somya Kejriwal, Adv.Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Adv.…for the respondent. The Court : We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learnedstanding counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. AvtatoshMajumdar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. SoumyaKejriwal and Mr. Indranil Banerjee, learned Advocates for therespondent/assessee and perused the affidavit filed in supportof the application for condonation of delay as well as the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent/assessee and theaffidavit-in-reply filed by the revenue. There is a delay of 1223 days in filing the appeal.The order impugned in the appeal was passed by the learnedTribunal on 16[th] November, 2018 and the certified copy wasreceived by the appellant/department on 20[th] December, 2018 andthe appeal was presented before this Court on 24[th] August,2022.The delay in filing the appeal from 20[th] November, 2018has not been explained. The averments are self serving anddevoid of any substance. That apart, we find that the decisionto file an appeal was taken by the department much after thedecision of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner ofIncome Tax-5 v. Swati Bajaj reported in 2022 SCC Online Cal1572. The appellant/department having not been diligent cannotnow take advantage of the decision of Swati Bajaj and statethat the delay of 1223 days has to be condoned. The law oflimitation will not assist the person who is not diligent ofhis right. That apart, there is no separate law of limitationfor the Government nor any latitude can be shown to theGovernment as the Government is as good as any other litigantand said to be the largest litigant.Thus, for the above reasons, we are not persuaded toexercise in favour of the appellant/revenue. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay (IA No.GA/1/2022) isdismissed. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue(ITAT/189/2022) stands rejected and the application for stay(IA No.GA/2/2022) also stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) A/s./S.Das