Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Income Tax Officer vs Pawan Kumar Bansal on 6 August, 2024
Author: T.S. Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S. Sivagnanam, Hiranmay Bhattacharyya
Form No. J.(2)
Item No.4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
HEARD ON: 06.08.2024
DELIVERED ON: 06.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
M.A.T. 385 2024
With
I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2024
+
I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2024
Income Tax Officer, Ward No.44 (1), Kolkata
Versus
Pawan Kumar Bansal, HUF & Ors.
Appearance:-
Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee
.........for the Appellant
Mr. Avra Mazumder
Mr. Giridhar Dhelia
Ms. Alisha Das
Mr. Samrat Das
......for the Respondents
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, C.J.)
In Re.:- I.A.No. CAN 1 of 2024
1. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties.
2. There is delay of 217 days in filing the appeal. We have perused the affidavit
filed in support of the petition and we find that sufficient cause has been
shown for not being able to prefer the appeal within the period of limitation.
3. I.A.No. CAN 1 of 2024 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is
condoned.
In Re.: M.A.T. 385 2024
1. We have heard the learned advocates for the parties.
2. It is not in dispute that the issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered
by the decision in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward-47 (1), Kolkata v.
Vinay Kumar Singh & Ors. in APOT 451 of 2023 dated 19.02.2024. The
said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:
"We have heard Mr. Om Narain Rai,
learned standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and
Mr. Om Prakash Prosad, learned Counsel for the
respondents.
There is a delay of 193 days in filing
the appeal. Since the explanation offered is satisfactory,
delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application for
condonation of delay is allowed.
This intra-court appeal by the Income
tax department is directed against the order dated 3rd
May, 2023, passed in WPO No.969 of 2023, by which the
order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (the Act), dated 29th July, 2022, relating to the
assessment year 2017- 18, was challenged on the ground
of non-compliance of the formalities of taking approval of
the specified authority mentioned in Section 151(ii) of the
Act.
The revenue cannot dispute the fact
that identical issue was decided against the Department in
the case of Siemens Financial Services (P) Ltd. vs. Deputy
Commissioner of Income-tax, (2023) 155 taxmann.com 159
(Bombay). This Court also had an occasion to consider
similar issue in (2024) 159 taxmann.com 5 (Bombay). The
decision is Siemens Financial Services (P) Ltd. (supra) has
also been followed in the case of (2024) 159 taxmann.com
5 (Bombay).
Thus, following the above decisions, the
appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
The connected application is also
dismissed."
3. Following the above decision, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department is
dismissed along with the connected application (IA No.CAN 2 of 2024).
4. No costs.
5. 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
I agree.
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
Pallab/Krishnendu AR(Ct.)
