High CourtsDivision Bench(2025) 09 CAL CK 0717

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs Klipcon Industries Limited & Ors

Calcutta High Court, Appellate Side · Decided on 10 September 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
T.S Sivagnanam, Cj · Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J
RESULT
Rejected
CASE NUMBER
M.A.T. 11 of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 316 words

T.S Sivagnanam, Cj

1.

This intra-Court appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 15th 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.

2.

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 30th April, 2024 and till date, no steps have been taken for restoration of the appeals.

3.

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

4.

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 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.

5.

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

6.

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

7.

Consequently, the appeal stands rejected.

8.

No costs.

9.

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