Disposed¶27

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and 3 Ors. v. Agnishanti Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Gauhati HC7 Apr 2025I.A.(Civil)/1035/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Enlargement of time; condonation of delay on grounds of hardship; CBDT; Income Tax Department; WP(C) No.2996/2024; I.A.(Civil)/1035/2025; Gauhati High Court; Justice Soumitra Saikia; order dated 08.04.2025; further 60 days granted; Agnishanti Construction Pvt Ltd; assessee raised no objection; application disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Further period of 60 (sixty) days granted to the authorities concerned to carry out the directions contained in the order dated 20.11.2024 passed in WP(C) No.2996/2024; Interlocutory Application disposed of. ¶27

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and 3 Ors. Vs Agnishanti Construction Pvt. Ltd. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010050442025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1035/2025

¶6

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND 3 ORS GUWAHATI- 01

¶7

2: ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC BENGALURU

¶8

3: DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CPC BENGALURU

¶9

4: CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NEW DELH

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

AGNISHANTI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD

¶12

OFFICE AT GNB ROAD, AMBARI, GUWAHATI-01, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI KUNAL AGNIHOTRI

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHETIA,

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : MD KHAN,

¶15

Page No.# 2/3

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

08.04.2025

¶19

Heard Mr. S Chetia, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. D. Khan, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶20

This interlocutory application has been filed by the Income Tax Department seeking enlargement of time for passing necessary orders in terms of the directions contained in the order dated 20.11.2024 passed in WP(C) No.2996/2024.

¶21

By the said order, a direction was issued to the CBDT Authorities to consider the claims of the petitioner for condonation of the delay on the grounds of hardship and thereafter pass appropriate order. The entire exercise was directed to be carried out within the outer limit of 60 (sixty) days.

¶22

The learned counsel for the applicants has referred to the grounds urged in the present Interlocutory Application seeking enlargement of time. It is submitted that because of official process required to be undertaken, the direction could not be carried out within the time specified in the order dated 20.11.2024. The matter is now before the CBDT and considering that the proper opportunity of hearing is required to be granted and notices to that effect are to be issued to the assessee, prayer is made on behalf of the Department for grant of further time of 12 weeks.

¶23

The learned counsel for the assessee does not object to the prayer for enlargement of time.

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

Considering the submissions made and also taking into consideration of the grounds urged in the Interlocutory Application seeking extension or enlargement of time, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be met if further period of 60 (sixty) days is granted to the authorities concerned to carry out the directions contained in the order dated 20.11.2024 passed in WP(C) No.2996/2024.

¶26

The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

¶27

The directions contained be carried out within 60 (sixty) days from today.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and 3 Ors. v. Agnishanti Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and 3 Ors. v. Agnishanti Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Asean Agencies Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Bharat Ch Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Nizara Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Raju Sheikh @ Raju Sk. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Jahidul Hoque Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Jahidul Hoque Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.