Bombay High Court
PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITEDversusDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC 25
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
A six‑day delay in filing the appeal under Section 260A is condonable in accordance with settled principles of law.
Summary
Patel Engineering Limited filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, but missed the prescribed time limit by six days. The appellant sought condonation of this delay through an interim application. The respondent opposed the condonation, arguing that the delay should not be excused. The Court examined the established principles governing applications for condonation of delay and found no substantive reason to deny relief. Accordingly, the Court allowed the application, directing the removal of any office objections within eight weeks and ordering the appeal to be listed for admission thereafter. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of six 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
- High Court of Bombay
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
PRAJAKTA
PRAJAKTA SAGAR
SAGAR
VARTAK
VARTAK
Date:
1-IA 2558-24.DOC
2026.09.02
16:59:44
+0530
Prajakta Vartak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2558 OF 2024
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 2173 OF 2024
Patel Engineering Limited … Applicant/Appellant
Vs.
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CC 25 … Respondent
_________
Mr. Madhur Agarwal i/b. Mint & Confreres for the applicant.
Mr. N. C. Ranganayakulu for Respondent/Revenue.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 29 AUGUST, 2026.
P.C.
1. By this Interim Application, the applicant/appellant has prayed for
condonation of delay of 6 days in filing the aforesaid Appeal under Section 260A
of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Interim Application is opposed by Mr.
Ranganayakulu, 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
29 August, 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.