Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-I v. M/s. ABP -TV Pvt. Ltd
[Citation -2015-LL-0423-10]

Citation 2015-LL-0423-10
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-I
Respondent Name M/s. ABP -TV Pvt. Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 23/04/2015
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags condonation of delay
Bot Summary: For Appellant : Mr.S.N.Dutta,Advocate Mrs.Smita Das De,Advocate For Respondent/assessee : Mr.S.Datta,Advocate Mr.U.Pramanik,Advocate The Court : By the order dated 24th March, 2011 the delay was condoned subject to payment of costs assessed at 30 G.M.s. There was stipulation that in default of payment of cost, the application for condonation of delay together with the appeal would both stand dismissed. Mr.Datta, learned advocate appearing for the respondent/assessee submits that the costs are not paid. Mr.S.N.Dutta, learned advocate appearing for the appellant is not in a position to dispute the submission advanced by Mr.Datta, learned advocate appearing for the respondent/assessee. Mr.S.N.Dutta, learned advocate appearing for the appellant is also unable to produce any receipt to show that the cost has been paid. If the cost is not paid, the appeal and the application stood dismissed by virtue of the order dated 24th March, 2011 after expiry of three weeks from 24th March, 2011. Thus, the appeal and the application are formally dismissed today.


ORDER SHEET ITAT 51 of 2011 IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-I Versus M/S. ABP - TV PVT. LTD. BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 23rd April, 2015. For Appellant : Mr.S.N.Dutta,Advocate Mrs.Smita Das De,Advocate For Respondent/assessee : Mr.S.Datta,Advocate Mr.U.Pramanik,Advocate Court : By order dated 24th March, 2011 delay was condoned subject to payment of costs assessed at 30 G.M.s. There was stipulation that in default of payment of cost, application for condonation of delay together with appeal would both stand dismissed. Mr.Datta, learned advocate appearing for respondent/assessee submits that costs are not paid. Mr.S.N.Dutta, learned advocate appearing for appellant is not in position to dispute submission advanced by Mr.Datta, learned advocate appearing for respondent/assessee. Mr.S.N.Dutta, learned advocate appearing for appellant is also unable to produce any receipt to show that cost has been paid. Therefore, if cost is not paid, appeal and application stood dismissed by virtue of order dated 24th March, 2011 after expiry of three weeks from 24th March, 2011. In that view of matter, nothing survives in appeal which already stood dismissed. Thus, appeal and application are formally dismissed today. (GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (ARINDAM SINHA, J.) ssaha AR(CR) Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-I v. M/s. ABP -TV Pvt. Ltd
Report Error