Bombay High Court
PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8 MUMBAIversusMONDELEZ INDIA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED - 7104/MUM/2017 (A.Y. 2013-14)
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the delay of 54 days is condonable under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Summary
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but missed the prescribed time limit by 54 days. The appellant sought condonation of this delay through an interim application. The respondent, Mondelez India Foods Private Limited, opposed the condonation. The Court examined the established principles governing condonation of delay and found the appellant's reasons sufficient. Accordingly, the Court allowed the application, directing removal of any office objections within eight weeks and ordering the appeal to be listed thereafter. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 54 days in filing an 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 Act
- Section 260A
- appeal procedure
- tax litigation
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
PRAJAKTA
PRAJAKTA SAGAR
SAGAR
VARTAK
VARTAK
Date:
309-IA 2234-26.DOC
2026.09.02
17:00:07
+0530
Prajakta Vartak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2234 OF 2026
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 18799 OF 2024
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8, Mumbai … Applicant/Appellant
Vs.
Mondelez India Foods Private Limited
(Formerly known as Cadbury India Limited) … Respondent
_________
Mr. P. A. Narayanan for applicant/appellant.
Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala i/b. Lumiere Law Partners for the 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 54 days in filing the aforesaid Appeal under Section
260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Interim Application is opposed by Ms.
Amalsadvala, 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. Office objections, if any, be removed within a period of eight weeks from
today.
5. List the appeal for admission after the removal of office objections.
6. 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.