Bombay High Court
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAIversusVODAFONE IDEA LIMITED - AY 09-10 ITA 3424/MUM/2014
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court allowed the interim application and granted condonation of the delay under Section 260A.
Summary
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai filed an appeal (Income Tax Appeal (L) No.16845 of 2024) but delayed filing it by 90 days. The applicant sought condonation of this delay under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent did not file any written opposition, only an oral one. The Court examined the application and found the reasons for delay sufficient and, in the interest of justice, granted condonation. Consequently, the interim application was allowed, subject to removal of any office objections within eight weeks, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the 90‑day delay in filing the income‑tax appeal can be condoned under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Legislation cited
- Income Tax Act, 1961 — s. 260A
Subjects
- Income Tax
- Section 260A
- condonation of delay
- tax appeal
- interim application
Judgment
15-IA-1543-25 IN ITXAL.DOC
JYOTI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAJESH
MANE ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
JYOTI RAJESH
MANE
Date: 2026.08.03
12:57:41 +0530
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1543 OF 2025
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.16845 OF 2024
Principal Commissioner Of
Income Tax 5 Mumbai ...Applicant
Versus
Vodafone Idea Limited - Ay 09-10
Ita 3424/Mum/2014 ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Vikas T. Khanchandani, for Applicant.
Mr. Jitendra Singh a/w. Ms. Shivali Mhatre and Mr. Rajesh Gaikwad,
for Respondent.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 31 JULY 2026
P.C.
1. We have heard Mr. Khanchandani, learned counsel for the applicant
and Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. By this interim application, the applicant has prayed for condonation of
delay of 90 days caused in filing the aforesaid appeal under the provisions of
Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. We have perused the averments as made in the application, which make
out a sufficient case for the delay to be condoned. Also, there is no written
opposition placed on record on behalf of the respondent to this application,
although an oral opposition.
Page 1 of 2
Mane
15-IA-1543-25 IN ITXAL.DOC
4. In the aforesaid circumstances, and in the interest of justice, the
application deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a).
5. Office objections, if any, be removed within a period of eight weeks
from today, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference
to the Court.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Mane
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.