Bombay High Court
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAIversusVODAFONE INDIA LTD - 1885/MUM/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10)
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court condoned the delay and allowed the interim application.
Summary
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but delayed filing it by 58 days. The applicant sought condonation of this delay through an interim application. The respondent did not file any written opposition, only an oral one. The Court examined the application, found the reasons for delay sufficient, and noted the absence of written opposition. In the interest of justice, the Court allowed the condonation of delay. The order also directed that any office objections be removed within eight weeks, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 58 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
- Income Tax
- Section 260A
- condonation of delay
- appeal procedure
- interim relief
Judgment
26-IA-2296-26 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
12:57:42 +0530
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2296 OF 2026
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 20404 OF 2024
Principal Commissioner Of
Income Tax 5 Mumbai … Applicant
Versus
Vodafone India Ltd -
1885/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10) ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Vikas T. Khanchandani, for Applicant.
Mr. Jitendra Singh a/w. Ms. Shivali Mhatre a/w. Mr. Rajesh Gaikwad,
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
and Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. By this interim application, the applicant has prayed for condonation of
delay of 58 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,
although an oral opposition.
Page 1 of 2
Mane
26-IA-2296-26 IN ITXAL.DOC
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).
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.