Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 MUMBAIversusSUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

A delay of 16 days in filing the appeal is condonable where the applicant shows sufficient cause and the delay is not gross.

Summary

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 16‑day delay in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Respondent, Supreme Industries Ltd, failed to appear despite service of notice, and an affidavit of service was placed on record. The Court examined the applicant’s justification for the delay and found it to be reasonable and not gross. Considering the adequacy of the explanation, the Court held that justice required condoning the delay. Consequently, the interim application was allowed, the appeal may proceed, and no costs were awarded, with a direction to remove any office objections within eight weeks.

Issues considered

  • Whether a delay of 16 days in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be condoned.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • condonation of delay
  • Income Tax Act
  • Section 260A
  • interim application
  • procedural law

Judgment

          Digitally
          signed by
          SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH    SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN   Date:
          2026.09.17
                                                                                            320- IA-2440-2026.DOC
          13:15:44
          +0530




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                                         INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2440 OF 2026
                                                         IN
                                        INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 23943 OF 2024

                       Principal Commissioner of Income
                       Tax 3 Mumbai                                             ...Applicant/Appellant
                              Versus
                       Supreme Industries Ltd                                   ...Respondent
                                                               _______

                       Mr Arjun Gupta, for Applicant/Appellant.
                                                               _______

                                                     CORAM:          G. S. KULKARNI &
                                                                     DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.

                                                     DATE:           11 SEPTEMBER 2026

                       P.C.

                       1.        Despite service of notice, none appears for the Respondent. An affidavit of

                       service to that effect is placed on record.

                       2.        We have heard learned counsel for the Applicant/Appellant 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 16 days.

                       3.        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
                                                                      320- IA-2440-2026.DOC



4.        The application is hence allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Interim

application stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

5.        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


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.