Bombay High Court
Income Tax 8 MumbaiversusPiramal Estates Pvt Ltd
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court condoned the delay and allowed the appeal to be admitted.
Summary
The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 42‑day delay in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The respondent, Piramal Estates Pvt. Ltd., opposed the application but did not dispute the established Supreme Court principles on condonation. The Court examined the memo, noted the delay was not gross and that sufficient cause was shown, and that the appeal raised a substantial question of law. Consequently, the Court held that justice required condoning the delay. The application was allowed, the appeal was ordered to be listed for admission, and no costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 42 days in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act can be condoned.
Legislation cited
- Income Tax Act — s. 260A
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- Section 260A
- Income Tax Act
- interim application
- procedural law
- appeal admission
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
313-IA 15-26.DOC
PRAJAKTA
PRAJAKTA SAGAR
SAGAR VARTAK
VARTAK Date:
2026.09.21
11:46:19
+0530
Prajakta Vartak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2026
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L.) NO. 27772 OF 2024
The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 8 Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
Piramal Estates Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
_________
Mr. Dhananjay Deshmukh (through VC) for Applicant/Appellant.
Mr. Atul Jasani for Respondent.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 18 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on this interim application which
is filed praying for condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid appeal under Section
260A of the Income Tax Act. The delay which is sought to be condoned is of 42 days.
There is no written opposition filed to this application. Mr. Jasani, learned counsel for
the respondent, although has opposed this application, he would not dispute the well
settled position in law in a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court in regard to the
principles to be followed on condoning the delay and more particularly he would not
dispute that, in the clear facts and circumstances of the case as set out in the memo of the
applications, the applicant/Revenue ought not to suffer or be rendered remediless in
pursuing the appeal, which seeks to raise a substantial question of law as raised in the
memo of the appeal.
2. In the aforesaid circumstances, having perused the memo of the application and
considering the period of delay not being very gross, in our opinion, the reasons as set
out certainly provide for an appropriate justification and a sufficient cause shown by the
applicant in regard to the delay in filing the appeal. It is hence in the interest of justice
that the delay is condoned.
3. The application is hence allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
4. The appeal accordingly be listed for admission, subject to removal of objections,
if any, to be removed within ten weeks from today.
5. Interim application stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 1 of 1
18 September 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.