TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
05 Oct 2026 
Chain of judgments/ orders:
M/s. Himatsingka Seide Limited Versus Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 2.
2026 (4) TMI 1920 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central 2, Kolkata Versus M/s. Himatsingka Seide Limited.
Order of ITAT dt.15.03.24 reported as 2024 (4) TMI 189 - ITAT KOLKATA - Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-XVI, Kolkata. And (Vice-Versa) And Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3 (4), Kolkata. Versus Himatsingka Seide Ltd.
References as mentions in order of High Court:
- Section 92CA - Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer
- Section 153A - Assessment in case of search or requisition
- Section 260A - Appeal to High Court
Cases referred:
- 2023 (11) TMI 814 - Supreme Court
SHEO RAJ SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR - 2012 (4) TMI 341 - Supreme Court
Office of the Chief Post Master General Versus Living Media India Ltd. - 2018 (7) TMI 1151 - SC Order - Commissioner of Income Tax 7 Versus M/s Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd
Related order of ITAT dt.15.03.24 reported as 2024 (4) TMI 189 - ITAT KOLKATA - Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-XVI, Kolkata. And (Vice-Versa) And Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3 (4), Kolkata. Versus Himatsingka Seide Ltd. Is important for understanding as to why assessee preferred to appeal before SC on point of COD allowed by HC in favour of revenue.
This find mention in order of High Court, however, it is not mentioned in citations and cases referred on this website. Editors please add link in HC order.
Appeal of assessee (HSL) before the Supreme Court (SC):
Before SC appeal of assessee was against order of HC allowing COD Petition of revenue in preferring appeal before HC which was delayed by 341 days and that was considered explained by Revenue to the satisfaction of the High Court.
Assessee preferred appeal before the Supreme Court, naturally in expectation that the order of High Court by which the COD petition was allowed by High Court, will be reversed so that assessee will be a winner as a consequence of dismissal of COD, main appeal will stand dismissed as a consequence. However, the hope did not materialise.
Order on COD petition before High Court:
The COD was heard by High Court by hearing counsels of revenue and counsels of assessee who had filed a rejoinder to the COD petition.
Relevant portion with heading is reproduced below with highlights added:
"II. ON CONDONATION OF DELAY (G.A. NO. 1 OF 2025)
2. At the threshold, we address the jurisdictional challenge of limitation. The Revenue attributes the 341-day delay to a "peculiar procedural trajectory." Following a search operation, the jurisdiction over the assessee was transferred from Bengaluru to Kolkata, a transition that necessitated the physical reconciliation and transfer of voluminous "judicial folders" across disparate Directorates. This administrative exigency was compounded by a multi-tiered hierarchical scrutiny involving the Principal Commissioner, the Judicial Cell, and the Investigation Wing.
3. The Respondent/Assessee, through an Affidavit-in-Opposition, has vehemently resisted the prayer for condonation. Relying on the ratio in Office of the Chief Post Master General Versus Living Media India Ltd. - 2012 (4) TMI 341 - Supreme Court, the Respondent contended that the State cannot claim a privileged status or a "lenient view" merely by virtue of being a Government entity. They specifically highlighted the Supreme Court's observation that the law of limitation binds the Government and private litigants equally, and that administrative decision-making layers cannot be used as a shield against negligence.
4. The Respondent further cited Commissioner of Income Tax 7 Versus M/s Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd - 2018 (7) TMI 1151 - SC Order, where the Apex Court refused to condone an inordinate delay, holding that the rights of the assessee had crystallized. They argued that the present delay is a symptom of "systemic lethargy" and "administrative red-tape," which do not constitute "sufficient cause."
5. We have weighed these competing contentions against the evolving jurisprudence on Section 5 of the Limitation Act. While the mandate for diligence remains absolute, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SHEO RAJ SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR - 2023 (11) TMI 814 - Supreme Court cautioned against a pedantic application of limitation laws. The Court recognized the "impersonal machinery" of the Government and the inherent procedural delays in hierarchical approvals, observing that a pragmatic and justice oriented approach must be adopted over a purely technical one.
6. In the present case, where the appeal involves substantial public revenue and complex questions concerning the interplay of search and transfer pricing provisions, we find that the Revenue has demonstrated "sufficient cause." The delay is attributable to the bona fide complexities of an inter-state jurisdictional transfer and record reconciliation. To dismiss the appeal at the threshold would be to prioritize a technical forfeiture over the advancement of substantial justice.
7. Accordingly, the delay of 341 days is condoned. G.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed."
Order of the honourable Supreme Court:
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and having gone through the materials on record, we see no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
3. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
4. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Unquote:
The order of SC is not a speaking order, with due respect author request their lordships of the honourable SC that at least through few sentences their lordship can summarise reasons as to why their lordships hold that they do not find good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.
This is necessary because, even judgment or order of the Supreme Court can be reconsidered on a review petition or a reference to larger bench can be made later on another bench while take a different view. There can also be a challenge by way of WP. The order is of the Supreme Court and not of any person being judge or judges. Therefore, honourable benches of SC also can reduce litigation by giving speaking order leaving no doubts as to why an order was passed in a particular manner.
In the order of High Court there is reference of a rejoinder filed by assessee however, it appears that in affidavit day to day explanation offered by revenue has not been discussed and objection raised for not allowing such delay has not been mentioned. Details are not found for day wise explanation for originally allowed one hundred and twenty days plus 341 days of admitted delay prayed for condonation.
In fact reasons for not filing appeal within originally allowed time of 120 days also need to be explained. Therefore, total 461 days period was required to be explained.
Time taken in filing appeal also seems to be wrongly counted, because date of pronouncement of order by ITAT can be considered as starting point. Because before ITAT, Kolkata, office of Ld. Departmental Representatives is at the same premises and orders are posted on website quickly on the day of pronouncement or within few days.
This is a recent case and desired speed of working must have been considered in view of information technology and resources available to various authorities. Even after changes in jurisdiction time required was minimal because for current periods records are available in soft form for all orders of authorities and ITAT. Various authorities are connected by networking, emails, websites, mobile phones and various e-tools of communication and transmission of records.
In view of that, reasons like 'impersonal machinery ', 'multiple jurisdictional issues', complexities of an inter-state jurisdictional transfer, record reconciliation etc. does not weigh much.
While filing rejoinder to COD petition and at the time of hearing of COD petition, it was to point out whether explanation was satisfactorily made for 461 days at each step delay took place and the COD petition was also made in a routine manner, without proper application of mind.
For example, in relevant days website of ITAT was working, and every concerned authority had facilities of information technology enabled services, therefore, 120 days' time itself was sufficient to file appeal without any COD petition.
As per experience revenue take generalised reasons and in this case also it was so, as we find in summary of recorded reasons in HC order.
Therefore, it seems that it was not properly and strongly contested and objected by ld. Counsel of assessee to deny condonation of delay.
Furthermore, not only period of delay but period originally allowed i.e. 120 days also need explanation to be explained by revenue as to why appeal could not be preferred within period allowed. As per usual practice Tax department counts days from the date of receipt of ITAT's order by the concerned Pr. CIT, that is also not correct. The limitation starts from the date of pronouncement of order by ITAT.
Earlier articles relevant to present case study:
In this connection in following articles learned author has discussed present circumstances under which condonation of delay should be rare. And opposite party in lis can contest COD petition of petitioner strongly:
- Appeal of Government Departments- in changed circumstances, strict filing limitations should be the rule. Condonation of Delay {COD in short} petitions and condonation deserve to banned. Dt.15 Sep 2026
- Practice support - seriously contesting condonation of delay petition (COD) filed by appellant to win the case by respondent. 28 Jan 2025
For detailed discussions ld. Readers can fruitfully refer to above articles. Summary given by A/I are as follows for two articles respectively:
Article 15.09.26 'Government departmental appeals should comply strictly with limitation periods, with condonation of delay treated as exceptional because departments have specialised personnel, legal support, established procedures, and digital facilities for timely filing. Electronic communication, portal-based orders, digital signatures, standard drafting tools, and online filing reduce the force of conventional delay explanations. Portal copies of orders may be used through an appropriate verification framework. Accountable monitoring, merit-based appeal scrutiny, and avoidance of repetitive or settled-issue challenges are necessary to reduce pendency and public expenditure. (AI Summary)
Article 28.01.2025 - Contesting condonation of delay: press for documentary proof to challenge unexplained procedural delays and defeat appeals.
Contesting an application for condonation of delay is a decisive procedural step because dismissal of the condonation petition terminates the appeal. Counsel for the respondent must closely scrutinise the chronological events and require documentary proof for each step relied upon to explain delay. Where appellants-especially government departments-invoke routine file movement despite available IT enabled communication and e filing, those explanations are vulnerable. Absence of contemporaneous records, duplicated or unexplained intervals, and lack of a substantial question of law supporting the appeal strengthen the case for denying condonation; respondents should seek production of appeal scrutiny reports and related documents and press for court directions if records are withheld. (AI Summary)
In the article dt. 28.01.2025 a real COD petition filed by department was discussed and it was pointed out that various reasons given for delays at most of steps in the process were not at all explained. In that case COD was dismissed by the HC.
Though full details of contest of COD are not found in case of Himatsingka Siede under study, however, it appears that it was not properly contested with emphasis of fast movement of e-files and documents in course of which distances and usual period taken in physical movement of files becomes minimal.