Bombay High Court
PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 4versusmacrotech developers limited
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court condoned the delay and allowed the interim application.
Summary
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central‑4 filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 23‑day delay in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961. The respondent, Macrotech Developers Limited, opposed the condonation. The Court examined the length of delay and applied the settled principles governing condonation of procedural delays. Finding no substantive impediment, the Court held that the delay should be condoned. Consequently, the interim application was allowed, the applicant was directed to remove any office objections within eight weeks, and the appeal was to be listed for admission, with no costs awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the 23‑day delay 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
- procedural law
- High Court of Bombay
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
PRAJAKTA
PRAJAKTA SAGAR
SAGAR
VARTAK
VARTAK
Date:
9-IA 3077-24.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. 3077 OF 2024
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 25825 OF 2024
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-4 … Applicant/Appellant
Vs.
Macrotech Developers Limited … Respondent
_________
Mr. Suresh Kumar for the applicant/appellant.
Mr. Jas Sanghavi with Ms. Linzy Sharan i/b. PDS Legal 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 23 days in filing the aforesaid Appeal under Section
260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Interim Application is opposed by Mr.
Sanghavi, 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.