Bombay High Court
PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 MUMBAIversusAPTAR PHARMA INIA PVT. LTD. AY 2017-18
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court condoned the 100‑day delay and ordered the appeal to be admitted.
Summary
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 100‑day delay in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The respondent opposed the application but did not dispute the established Supreme Court principles governing condonation of delay. The Court examined the reasons for delay, found them sufficient and not overly gross, and held that it was in the interest of justice to condone the delay. Consequently, the application was allowed, the appeal was ordered to be listed for admission, and the parties were directed to remove any objections within ten weeks. No costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 100 days in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act can be condoned?
Legislation cited
- Income Tax Act — s. 260A
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- Income Tax Act
- Section 260A
- interim application
- procedural law
- interest of justice
Judgment
310-IA 2895-26.DOC
Digitally
signed by
PRAJAKTA
PRAJAKTA SAGAR
SAGAR VARTAK
VARTAK Date:
2026.08.24
12:59:15
Prajakta Vartak
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2895 OF 2026
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L.) NO. 20421 OF 2024
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 6 Mumbai ...Applicant/Appellant
Versus
Aptar Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
_________
Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for Applicant.
Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala i/b. Lumiere Law Partners for Respondent.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 21 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 100 days.
There is no written opposition filed to this application. Ms. Amalsadvala, learned
counsel for the respondent, although has vehemently opposed this application, she
would not dispute the well settled position in law in a catena of judgments of the
Supreme Court in regard to the principles to be followed on condoning the delay and
more particularly she would not dispute that, in the clear facts and circumstances of the
case as set out in the memo of the application, the applicant/Revenue ought not to suffer
or be rendered remediless in pursuing the appeal, which seeks to raise a substantial
question of law as raised in the memo of the appeal.
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).
4. The appeal accordingly be listed for admission, subject to removal of objections,
if any, to be removed within ten weeks from today.
5. Interim application stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 1 of 1
21 August 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.