DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA V. STARMILK PRODUCTS PVT LTD, KOLKATA

MA 78/KOL/2026

AI Insights

The case involves a miscellaneous application by the revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had dismissed the revenue's appeal due to delay. The revenue sought to recall the Tribunal's order, presenting detailed reasons for the delay. However, the Tribunal concluded that the revenue's attempt to justify the delay and reconsider the decision was not allowed under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, which restricts the Tribunal from reconsidering its decisions except to correct errors.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 893178 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDIP SARKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT AGARWAL

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.78/Kol/2026 (Arising out of ITA No.1107/Kol/2024) (निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year : 2018-19) DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata Vs Starmilk Products Pvt. Ltd. 8, Saha Court, 1st Floor, Ganesh Cahndra Avenue, Kol-13. PAN No.: AAVCS8888C (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Sandip Sarkar, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 11/09/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 11/09/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, JM: The present miscellaneous application filed by the revenue against the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.1107/Kol/2024 dated 08.09.2025. 2. Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee and Shri Sandip Sarkar, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. The revenue submits that the order of the Tribunal is liable to be recalled in so far as the appeal of the revenue has been dismissed on account of delay. In fact, the reasons given by the revenue at the time of hearing has been extracted by the Tribunal in its order. In the miscellaneous application, the revenue has come out with detailed reasons for the delay. This clearly shows that the revenue is asking for reconsideration of the decision of the Tribunal. This is not permissible under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com MANo.78/Kol/2025 2 Consequently, as the revenue has not able to point out any specific error in the order of the Tribunal and the revenue’s attempt to justify the petition for condonation of delay, which is in effect a reconsideration of the issue which has considered by the Tribunal, the same is not permissible u/s 254(2) of the Act. 4. In the result, the miscellaneous application of the revenue is dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 11/09/2026. Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [George Mathan] लेखा सदस्य/Accountant Member न्याययक सदस्य/Judicial Member Dated: 11/09/2026 RS आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER, 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यापपत प्रयत //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com "