Bombay High Court
PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAIversusTHE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO LTD AY 2010 11 ITA 1216 MUM 2015
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the delay of 155 days in filing the appeals is condonable under Section 260A of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961.
Summary
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Mumbai filed interim applications seeking condonation of a 155‑day delay in filing three income‑tax appeals under Section 260A of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961. The respondent, The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd., opposed the applications. The Court examined the length of delay and applied the established principles governing condonation of delay. Finding that the delay could be justified, the Court ordered that the delay be condoned. Consequently, the interim applications were allowed and disposed of without any costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the 155‑day delay in filing the income‑tax appeals under Section 260A, 1961 can be condoned?
Legislation cited
- Income Tax Act, 1961 — s. 260A
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- Section 260A
- Income‑Tax Appeal
- procedural law
- interim application
Judgment
301.ITXA3103_2024.DOC
2026:BHC-OS:20664-DB
Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3103 OF 2024
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 28493 OF 2024
AND
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3104 OF 2024
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 28513 OF 2024
AND
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3152 OF 2024
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 28504 OF 2024
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Mumbai … Applicant
Vs.
The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. … Respondent
__________
Mr. Vikas T. Khanchandani for the applicant.
Mr. Atul K. Jasani for the respondent.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE : 18 SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.
1. By these Interim Applications, the applicant/appellant has prayed for
condonation of delay of 155 days in filing the aforesaid Appeals under Section
260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Interim Applications are 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 Interim Applications are accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause
(a).
4. Interim Applications stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Signed by: Vidya S. Amin Page 1 of 1
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge 18 September, 2026
Date: 21/09/2026 11:42:21
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.