Bombay High Court
PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 MUMBAIversusTata Steel Ltd AY 2007 08
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the 99‑day delay is condonable under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act.
Summary
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Mumbai) filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act but missed the prescribed time limit by 99 days. An interim application was filed seeking condonation of this delay. The Respondent, Tata Steel Ltd, opposed the application, though no written opposition was filed. The Court examined the reasons for delay, found them satisfactory and not overly gross, and held that condoning the delay would serve the interests of justice. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, granting condonation of the 99‑day delay without imposing costs, and directed removal of any office objections within eight weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 99 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 Appeal
- civil procedure
- interest of justice
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2026.09.17
308- IA-1887-2025.DOC
13:15:45
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1887 OF 2025
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 23007 OF 2024
Principal Commissioner of Income
Tax 2 Mumbai ...Applicant/Appellant
Versus
Tata Steel Ltd AY 2007-08 ...Respondent
_______
Mr Abhishek R Mishra, for Applicant/Appellant.
Ms Jasmin Amalsadvala, for Respondent.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 11 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 99 days. Learned counsel for the Respondent has opposed the application
although no written opposition is filed to this application.
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.
Page 1 of 2
Shivgan
308- IA-1887-2025.DOC
3. The application is hence allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Interim
application stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
4. Let the office objections, if any, be removed within a period of 8 weeks from
today.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Shivgan
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.