Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 5 vs Sri Sushil Kumar Bardia on 2 January, 2023

Author: T.S. Sivagnanam

Bench: T.S. Sivagnanam, Hiranmay Bhattacharyya

OD-16
                              IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                            SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX)
                                      ORIGINAL SIDE

                                        ITAT/146/2022
                                IA NO: GA/1/2022, GA/2/2022

                  PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5, KOLKATA
                                         VS.
                              SRI SUSHIL KUMAR BARDIA

BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
             And
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
Date : 2nd January, 2023
                                                                                     Appearance :
                                                                         Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv.
                                                                                    ...for appellant.
                                                                        Ms. Subash Agarwal, Adv.
                                                                                  ...for respondent.

The Court : - Heard respective counsel for the either side. Perused the averments set out in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for condonation of delay, the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent.

There is a delay of 982 days in filing the appeal. On perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay application we find that there is no acceptable reason given for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The averments set out in the reply by the revenue does not in any manner improve the case of the revenue. Thus, we are satisfied that no sufficient explanation has been shown by the appellant/revenue for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

Hence, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands rejected.

(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) (HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.) Pkd/GH.