Bombay High Court
PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8 MUMBAIversusBSR AND CO LLP AY 2012-13
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court condoned the 76‑day delay, finding sufficient cause shown by the applicant.
Summary
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 76‑day delay in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The respondent, BSR & Co. LLP, did not oppose the application. The Court examined the memo and found the delay not gross and the reasons provided sufficient to justify the lapse. Accordingly, the Court held that condoning the delay was in the interest of justice. The application was allowed, no costs were awarded, and the Court directed that any office objections be removed within eight weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 76 days in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act can be condoned
- Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for the delay
Legislation cited
- Income Tax Act — s. 260A
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- Income Tax Act
- Section 260A
- interim application
- procedural law
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
PRAJAKTA
302-IA 2235-24.DOC
PRAJAKTA SAGAR
SAGAR VARTAK
VARTAK Date:
2026.08.24
12:59:14
+0530
Prajakta Vartak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2235 OF 2026
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L.) NO. 20111 OF 2024
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 8 Mumbai ...Applicant
Versus
BSR & Co. LLP ...Respondent
_________
Mr. P. A. Narayanan for Applicant/Appellant.
Mr. Jeet Kamdar i/b. Mr. Atul Jasani for Respondent.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 21 AUGUST 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 prayed for to be condoned is of 76 days. There
is no written opposition filed to this application by the learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. In the aforesaid circumstances, having perused the memo of the application and
considering the period of delay not being 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.
3. The application is accordingly 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 1 of 1
21 August 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.