Principal Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Central-1, Kolkata v. M/S. Gujarat Nre Coke Ltd

ITAT/257/2022IA No.GA/1/2022GA/2/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA -Versus- M/S. GUJARAT NRE COKE LTD. BEFORE :THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAMAndTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYADate : 6[th ]February, 2023 Appearance :Mr. Prithu Dudheria, Adv.…for the appellant. Mr. Keshav Dutta, Adv.Ms. Shalinee Basu, Adv.…for the respondent. The Court : We have heard Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learnedstanding counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. KeshavDutta, assisted by Ms. Shalinee Basu, learned Advocatesrepresenting the liquidator who has been appointed by theNational Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata (NCLT).There is a delay of 972 days in filing the appeal. Wehave perused the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay as well as the affidavit-in-oppositionand we find that though the certified copy of the order passedby the Tribunal was received by the Department on 20[th]November, 2019, the appeal was preferred before this Court on16[th] November, 2019. The delay is inordinate and unexplained.That apart, the revenue had preferred another appeal beforethis Court in ITAT/263/2022 in respect of the very sameassessee for the assessment year 2012-13 which was dismissed byorder dated 16[th] January, 2023 by assigning the followingreasons: “We have heard respective counsel for theeither side. It appears that there is a delay of 944days in filing the appeal. The certified copy ofthe order passed by the learned Tribunal was receivedby the department on 18.12.2019 but the appeal wasfiled before this Court only on 28.11.2022. On perusal of the affidavit filed insupport of the condone delay petition, we find thatthough the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(3), Kolkata approved the filing of appeal as early ason 21.2.2020, the appeal was filed on 28.11.2022. Oneof the reasons given in the affidavit filed in supportof the condone delay petition that there was arestructuring in the department and the case wastransferred to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(1), Kolkata on 20.10.2020 and it is thereafterthe action was taken. Admittedly, the period of limitation for filing the appeal expired much prior tothe outbreak of Covid and the imposition of lockdown.In any event, the restructuring of the department canhardly be a reason in not preferring the appealwithin the period especially when the approvalfor filing an appeal given by the PCIT (3) muchprior to the date of restructuring. Thus, wefind that sufficient cause has not been shown forcondonation of the inordinate delay for 944 days. For the above reason, the condonedelay petition is dismissed. Consequently, theappeal stands rejected. The stay application alsostands dismissed.Substantial questions of law as suggested bythe revenue are left open.” The so called reasons given by the appellant/departmentin the affidavit filed in support of the condonation of delayapplication is no different from what was stated inITAT/263/2022, which we have already rejected. Thus, we find that there is absolutely no ground madeout by the appellant/revenue for condoning the inordinate delayof 972 days in filing the appeal. In the result, theapplication for condonation of delay (IA No.GA/1/2022) isdismissed. Consequently, the appeal (ITAT/257/2022) stands rejected. In the result, the connected application for stay (IANo.GA/2/2022) also stands closed. (T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) A/s./S.Das