Bombay High Court
PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 MUMBAIversusTHE BOMBAY DYEING AND MANUFACTURING CO LTD
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court condoned the delay and allowed the interim application.
Summary
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Mumbai filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but delayed filing it by 77 days. The appellant sought condonation of this delay through an interim application, which was opposed by the respondent, The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. The High Court examined the established principles governing condonation of delay and found the appellant’s reasons sufficient. Accordingly, the Court condoned the 77‑day delay and allowed the interim application. No costs were awarded, and the interim application was disposed of in favor of the appellant.
Issues considered
- Whether the 77‑day delay in filing the appeal under Section 260A of the Income‑tax Act, 1961 can be condoned?
Legislation cited
- Income Tax Act, 1961 — s. 260A
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- Income‑tax appeal
- Section 260A
- procedural law
- High Court
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
PRAJAKTA
PRAJAKTA SAGAR
SAGAR
VARTAK
VARTAK
Date:
3-IA 2229-26.DOC
2026.09.02
17:00:08
+0530
Prajakta Vartak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2229 OF 2026
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L.) NO. 20200 OF 2024
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. ...Respondent
_________
Ms. Samiksha Kanani for Applicant.
Mr. Madhur Agrawal i/b. Mr. Atul Jasani for Respondent.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 28 AUGUST, 2026.
P.C.
1. By this Interim Application, the applicant/appellant has prayed for
condonation of delay of 77 days in filing the aforesaid Appeal under Section
260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Interim Application is opposed by Mr.
Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. We have perused the averments made in the application. Considering the
period of delay and the settled principles of law governing applications for
condonation of delay, in our opinion, it is appropriate that the delay is condoned.
3. The application is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
4. Interim Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 1 of 1
28 August, 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.