Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4 1 Vs… — Income Tax | Calcutta HC (2024)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4 1 Vs… — Income Tax | Calcutta HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the application for condonation of delay in I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023 in M.A.T. 11 of 2023 was dismissed and, consequently, the appeal stands rejected; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 279 days in filing intra-Court appeal M.A.T. 11 of 2023 should be condoned, given the explanation offered in the affidavit supporting I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023.

Court's answer

Except for stating that the file was moving from one officer to another, no acceptable explanation was given by the Department in the affidavit for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

Ratio / Principle

The want of acceptable explanation was aggravated by the fact that the Department was represented before the learned Single Bench and the impugned order was passed after hearing the submissions made on its behalf.

Key takeaways

The Court was therefore not inclined to exercise any discretion in favour of the appellant/Department towards condonation of the delay.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay refused — appeal rejected. The Department's intra-Court appeal M.A.T. 11 of 2023 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(1) v. Klipcon Industries Limited & Ors.), filed with a delay of 279 days, challenged the Single Bench order dated 15th November, 2021 in W.P.A. 14300 of 2021, whereby the assessee's writ petition against an assessment order passed under Section 144 read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (on the ground of lack of jurisdiction) had been allowed, with liberty to the assessing officer to take recourse under the relevant provisions. The affidavit supporting I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023 offered no acceptable explanation beyond movement of the file between officers — notably as the Department had been represented before the learned Single Bench when the impugned order was passed after hearing its submissions. Discretion was declined; the condonation application was dismissed and the appeal stood rejected, with no costs. Companion appeals M.A.T. 2082–2086 of 2022 had already been dismissed for non-prosecution on 30th April, 2024, with no restoration steps taken.

10.09.2025

Item Nos.3 to 8 PG/KS Ct. No.1

M.A.T. 11 of 2023

With

I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023

+

CAN 2 of 2023

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(1)

Versus

Klipcon Industries Limited & Ors. With MAT 2082 of 2022

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(1)

Vs. Fylfot India Limited & Ors. With

M.A.T. 2083 of 2022

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(1) Vs.

Viraj Technocom Limited & Ors. With

M.A.T. 2084 of 2022

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(1)

Vs.

Sunita Industries Private Limited & Ors. With

M.A.T. 2085 of 2022

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(1)

Vs.

Bajrang Idcol Tea Company Limited & Ors. With

M.A.T. 2086 of 2022

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(1) Vs.

KVR Steels Orissa Limited & Ors.

Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee Mr. Ankan Das Ms. Shradhya Ghosh

……….For the Appellant/Applicant

2

In Re.:- M.A.T. 11 of 2023

This intra-Court appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 15^th November, 2021 in W.P.A. 14300 of 2021. In the said writ petition, the respondent/assessee challenged the validity and legality of the assessment order passed under Section 144 read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The writ petition was allowed. However, liberty was granted to the assessing officer to take recourse against the assessee under the relevant provisions of law.

Similar orders were passed in five other writ petitions as against which the Department had filed intra-Court appeals in M.A.T. 2082 of 2022, M.A.T. 2083 of 2022, M.A.T. 2084 of 2022, M.A.T. 2085 of 2022 and M.A.T. 2086 of 2022 and all these appeals have been dismissed for non-prosecution as early as on 30^th April, 2024 and till date, no steps have been taken for restoration of the appeals.

In this intra-Court appeal, there is a delay of 279 days in filing the appeal.

We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the application and we find that except for stating that the file was moving from one officer to another, no acceptable explanation has been given by the Department for not

3

preferring the appeal within the period of limitation; more particularly, when the Department was represented before the learned Single Bench and after hearing the submissions made on behalf of the Department, the impugned order has been passed.

Therefore, we are not inclined to exercise any discretion in favour of the appellant/Department.

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay in I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2023 in M.A.T. 11 of 2023 is dismissed.

Consequently, the appeal stands rejected.

No costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.

(T.S SIVAGNANAM)

CHIEF JUSTICE

(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)