Rvwo/44/2023 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Siliguri v. Prakasho Devi Saria
High Court
22 Mar 2024 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_original_side
Parties
Rvwo/44/2023 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Siliguri v. Prakasho Devi Saria
Date of order
22 Mar 2024
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Rvwo/44/2023 Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Siliguri v. Prakasho Devi Saria, the High Court (2024) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
OD-18
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTASPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)ORIGINAL SIDE
RVWO 44 OF 2023IA NO: GA/2/2023PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI-Versus-PRAKASHO DEVI SARIA
BEFORE:
The Hon’ble the Chief Justice T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CHIEF JUSTICE
-And-
The Hon’ble JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
Date : 22[nd] March, 2024
Appearance :Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv...for the appellantMr. Amales Ray, Adv.Mr. Dhiraj Lakhotia, Adv.Ms. Radhika Agarwal, Adv.…for the respondent
The Court : We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned Counselappearing for the appellant and Mr. Amales Ray, learned Counsel for therespondent.
There is a delay of 76 days in filing this review application. Since we aresatisfied with the reasons offered in the application for condonation of delay,the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The condone delay petition isallowed.
The assessee filed the review application being RVWO 27 of 2023 toreview the judgment and order dated 14[th] June, 2022 in ITAT 138 of 2021. Byorder dated 17[th] May, 2023, Court declined to entertain the review application.However, since it was submitted that pursuant to order passed by the Tribunalrefund was already granted to the assessee, there was an observation that ifthe amount has already been refunded to the assessee it should not berecovered by the Department on account of the judgment dated 14[th] June,2022.
This observation will not help the assessee since after the judgment ofthis Court on 14[th] June, 2022 the assessee has paid the money on 9[th]September, 2022 and 15[th] September, 2022, as could be seen from the copy ofthe challan filed in the review application. Therefore, the observation that theDepartment should not recover the amount if it has already been paid by thatthe assessee, that will not enure in favour of the respondent/assessee andtherefore the respondent/assessee is not entitled to make any application forrefund.
With the above clarification, the review application stands disposed of.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM) CHIEF JUSTICE
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)SN.AR(CR)
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.