Bombay High Court
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAIversusNAHALCHAND LALOOCHAND PVT LTD AY 2018-19
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court allowed the condonation of the 29‑day delay under Section 260A, finding sufficient cause and no opposition.
Summary
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai filed Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 7286 of 2024 but missed the filing deadline by 29 days. The applicant sought condonation of this delay under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 through an interim application. The court examined the affidavit and found a sufficient cause for the delay and noted that the respondent did not file any written opposition. In the interest of justice, the court held that the delay could be condoned. Consequently, the application for condonation was allowed, and the court directed that any office objections be removed within eight weeks, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the 29‑day delay in filing the income‑tax appeal can be condoned under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for the delay.
- Whether the lack of opposition from the respondent affects the decision on condonation.
Legislation cited
- Income Tax Act, 1961 — s. 260A
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- Section 260A
- Income Tax Appeal
- interim application
- procedural law
- tax litigation
Judgment
17-IA-1546-25 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. 1546 OF 2025
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 7286 OF 2024
Principal Commissioner Of
Income Tax 5 Mumbai … Applicant
Versus
Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt
Ltd Ay 2018-19 ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Vikas T. Khanchandani, for Applicant.
None 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.
2. By this interim application, the applicant has prayed for condonation of
delay of 29 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.
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).
Page 1 of 2
Mane
17-IA-1546-25 IN ITXAL.DOC
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.