Bombay High Court
PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAIversusThe Great Eastern Shipping Co Ltd AY 09 10 ITA 3272MUM2015
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court condoned the 126‑day delay in filing the appeal under Section 260A of the Income‑tax Act, 1961.
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 126 days. The appellant sought condonation of this delay through an interim application, which was opposed by the respondent, The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. The High Court examined the established principles governing condonation of delay and found the appellant’s reasons sufficient. Accordingly, the Court condoned the delay, ordered removal of any office objections within eight weeks, and directed that the appeal be listed for admission. No costs were awarded and the interim application was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay of 126 days in filing the 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:
4-IA 2603-24.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. 2603 OF 2024
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 25667 OF 2024
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Mumbai …Applicant/Appellant
Vs.
The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. …Respondent
_________
Mr. Siddharth Bhatia h/f. Mr. Vikas Khanchandani for the applicant.
Mr. Atul Jasani for Respondent.
__________
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 126 days in filing the aforesaid Appeal under Section
260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Interim Application is vehemently
opposed by Mr. Jasani, 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.