Bombay High Court
PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 MUMBAIversusTata Steel Ltd AY 2006 07
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court condoned the 99‑day delay, finding sufficient cause shown under Section 260A.
Summary
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 99‑day delay in filing Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 23012 of 2024 against Tata Steel Ltd for AY 2006‑07, invoking Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The respondent opposed the application, though no written opposition was filed. The Court examined the memo and found the delay not gross and the reasons provided sufficient to justify the lapse. Accordingly, the Court held that in the interest of justice the delay should be condoned. 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 99 days in filing an income‑tax appeal can be condoned under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act
- Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for the delay
Legislation cited
- Income Tax Act — s. 260A
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- Section 260A
- Income Tax Appeal
- procedural law
- interim application
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
SHAMBHAVI
SHAMBHAVI NILESH
NILESH SHIVGAN
SHIVGAN Date:
2026.09.17
305- IA-3078-2024.DOC
13:15:45
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3078 OF 2024
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 23012 OF 2024
Principal Commissioner of Income
Tax 2 Mumbai ...Applicant/Appellant
Versus
Tata Steel Ltd AY 2006 07 ...Respondent
_______
Mr Abhishek R Mishra, for Applicant/Appellant.
Ms Jasmin Amalsadvala, for Respondent.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 11 SEPTEMBER 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 99 days. Learned counsel for the Respondent has opposed the application
although no written opposition is filed to this application.
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.
Page 1 of 2
Shivgan
305- IA-3078-2024.DOC
3. The application is hence allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Interim
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.)
Page 2 of 2
Shivgan
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.