Bombay High Court
PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 MUMBAIversusRELIANCE POWER LIMITED - AY-2014-15
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the 63‑day delay in filing the appeal under Section 260A is condonable as the applicant demonstrated sufficient cause.
Summary
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 63‑day delay in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue did not oppose the application. The Court examined the memo and found the delay not to be gross and the reasons provided to constitute sufficient cause. In the interest of justice, the Court decided to condone the delay. Consequently, the application was allowed, no costs were awarded, and the parties were directed to remove any office objections within eight weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 63 days in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act can be condoned?
- Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause to justify the delay?
Legislation cited
- Income Tax Act, 1961 — s. 260A
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- Income Tax Appeal
- Section 260A
- interim relief
- civil procedure
Judgment
21-IA-2891-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2891 OF 2026
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 21357 OF 2024
Principal Commissioner Of Income
Tax-6, Mumbai ...Applicant/Appellant
Versus
Reliance Power Limited - AY-2014-15 ...Respondent
_______
Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, for Applicant/Appellant.
Mr. Balasaheb S. Yewale, with Aarti R. Mallah, for Respondent.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 14th 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 which is sought to be condoned is
of 63 days. There is no written opposition filed to this application by the learned
counsel for the Revenue.
2. 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.
3. The application is hence allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Interim
Page 1 of 2
Shivgan
21-IA-2891-2026.DOC
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.)
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2026.08.18
11:41:28
+0530
Page 2 of 2
Shivgan
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.