PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA PRITHU DUDHORIA vs HARBANS SINGHA BAGGA — ITAT/23/2026
Case under Income-tax Act ,1961 Section 260A. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 04th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCO0002232026
e-Filing Number
15-01-2026
Filing Number
ITAT/23/2026
Filing Date
17-01-2026
Registration No
ITAT/23/2026
Registration Date
17-01-2026
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ , HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ , HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
Bench Type
Division Bench
Judicial Branch
APPEAL SECTION
Decision Date
04th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA PRITHU DUDHORIA
Respondent(s)
HARBANS SINGHA BAGGA
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ , HON'BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR
FOR ADMISSION (INCOME TAX MATTERS)
Revoked
FOR ADMISSION (INCOME TAX MATTERS)
FOR ADMISSION (INCOME TAX MATTERS)
FOR ADMISSION (INCOME TAX MATTERS)
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-03-2026 | FOR ADMISSION (INCOME TAX MATTERS) |
| 04-05-2026 | Revoked |
| 20-03-2026 | FOR ADMISSION (INCOME TAX MATTERS) |
| 19-03-2026 | FOR ADMISSION (INCOME TAX MATTERS) |
| 18-03-2026 | FOR ADMISSION (INCOME TAX MATTERS) |
Orders
The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's appeal against Harbans Singha Bagga for Assessment Year 2014-2015. Although the court condoned the 324-day filing delay, it dismissed the appeal because the tax effect of Rs.35,35,543 fell below the Rs.2 crores threshold and the appellant failed to clearly identify which exceptional clause under CBDT Circular No.5 of 2024 (para 3.1(h)) applied to justify entertaining the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's appeal against Harbans Singha Bagga for Assessment Year 2014-2015. Although the court condoned the 324-day filing delay, it dismissed the appeal because the tax effect of Rs.35,35,543 fell below the Rs.2 crores threshold and the appellant failed to clearly identify which exceptional clause under CBDT Circular No.5 of 2024 (para 3.1(h)) applied to justify entertaining the case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts