Bombay High Court
Income Tax 8 MumbaiversusPiramal Estates Pvt Ltd
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court condoned the 58‑day delay and allowed the interim application.
Summary
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 58‑day delay in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The respondent, Piramal Estates Pvt. Ltd., did not file a written opposition, and although its counsel opposed the application, he did not dispute the established Supreme Court principles governing condonation of delay. The Court examined the memo and found that the delay was not gross and that the applicant had provided sufficient justification, noting that the appeal raised a substantial question of law. In the interest of justice, the Court held that the delay should be condoned. Accordingly, the application was allowed, the appeal was ordered to be listed for admission, and no costs were awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 58 days in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act can be condoned.
- Whether the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for condonation of delay apply in the present facts.
Legislation cited
- Income Tax Act — s. 260A
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- Income Tax Act
- Section 260A
- interim application
- civil procedure
- appeal admission
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
306-IA 3357-25.DOC
PRAJAKTA
PRAJAKTA SAGAR
SAGAR VARTAK
VARTAK Date:
2026.09.21
11:46:18
+0530
Prajakta Vartak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3357 OF 2025
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L.) NO. 29119 OF 2024
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 8 Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
Piramal Estates Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent
_________
Mr. Dhananjay Deshmukh (through VC) for Applicant/Appellant.
Mr. Atul Jasani for Respondent.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
DATE: 18 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 58 days.
There is no written opposition filed to this application. Mr. Jasani, learned counsel for
the respondent, although has opposed this application, he 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 he would not
dispute that, in the clear facts and circumstances of the case as set out in the memo of the
applications, 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
18 September 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.