Wpa 4082 Of 2021Vikash Nagelia v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-Ii & Anr.(Through Video Conference
High Court
16 Apr 2021 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · calcutta_appellate_side
Parties
Wpa 4082 Of 2021Vikash Nagelia v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-Ii & Anr.(Through Video Conference
Date of order
16 Apr 2021
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wpa 4082 Of 2021Vikash Nagelia v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-Ii & Anr.(Through Video Conference, the High Court (2021) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Considering these facts, this writ petition, beingWPA 4082 of 2021 is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
S/L 4206.12.2021Court. No. 2cm
WPA 4082 of 2021Vikash Nagelia
Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-II & Anr.(Through Video Conference)
Mr. Suryaneel Das
…. For the Petitioner.
Mr. Dhiraj TrivediMr. Manabendra Nath Bandyopadhyay
… For the respondents
Heard learned advocates appearing for theparties.
In this matter, petitioner has challenged theimpugned order dated 26[th] February, 2013 passed bythe Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 after eight years. Petitionersubmits that due to mistake he had filed an appealbefore the Tribunal against the assessment order inquestion and it appears from record that the saidappeal was dismissed on 25[th] September, 2014 as itappears from Annexure P-5 to the writ petition andeven if the explanation of the petitioner is accepted thetime was consumed by him in the appeal in that casealso from the order of the Tribunal it is after almostseven years in approaching the writ court and this in-ordinate delay itself is sufficient ground for refusal toentertain the writ petition. In justification of delay ofthis seven years, petitioner wants to rely on Paragraphs7 and 8 of this writ petition but I am not convinced
with the same since the writ court is a court of equityand it is for those who are vigilant and diligent to theirrights and not for those who sleep over their rights. Inaddition, I find that the impugned order dated 26[th]February, 2013 being Annexure P-3 to the writ petitionwas passed by giving opportunity of hearing to thepetitioner but he did not avail that opportunity and heasked further adjournment.
Considering these facts, this writ petition, beingWPA 4082 of 2021 is dismissed.
(Md. Nizamuddin, J.)
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.