Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 5 Kolkata vs Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port Kolkata

[Cites 1, Cited by 0] Calcutta High Court Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 5 Kolkata vs Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port Kolkata on 10 July, 2026 Author: Rajarshi Bharadwaj Bench: Rajarshi Bharadwaj ORDER SHEET ITA/50/2026 IA NO: GA/1/2026, GA/2/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA VS SYAMA PRASAD MOOKERJEE PORT KOLKATA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ AND The Hon'ble JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR Date: 10th July, 2026. The Court: We have heard learned advocates on either side. There is a delay of 224 days in filing the appeal. We are satisfied with the explanation offered for not preferring the appeal within time. Therefore, the delay is condoned. The application being GA/1/2026 is allowed. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law for consideration. 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi deleting the disallowance of Rs.648,84,64,174/- made by the A.O. on account of contributions towards Superannuation Fund in excess of limit fixed under Rule 87 by considering it as an exceptional onetime payment and failing to consider that such excess contribution to meet shortfall in fund balance was a regular practice over past several years and as such was rightly considered by the A.O. as regular contribution? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Exide Industries reported in [2023] 146 taxmann.com 21 (Cal) and failing to appreciate that the facts of the instant case are different from that of Exide Industries as in the case of the assessee, the excess contribution to meet shortfall in fund balance was a regular practice over past several years and not a onetime exception? 3. Whether the order of the Learned Tribunal is perverse, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and deserves to be set aside? As the appellant as well as the respondent are agreeable on the issue that the matter can be heard on the existing papers filed along with the application for stay being GA 2 of 2026, formality of preparing paper books are dispensed with. However, the respondent is requested to file supplementary affidavit, if any, within five days from date. Settlement of index and all other formalities are also dispensed with. Since the respondent is represented, service of notice of appeal stands dispensed with. Let the matter be listed on 17th July, 2026 under the same heading. (RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J.) (UDAY KUMAR, J.)