Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

Income Tax-2versusmahindra and mahindra ltd

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court condoned the 17‑day delay in filing the appeal under Section 260A.

Summary

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 filed an interim application seeking condonation of a 17‑day delay in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961. The respondent, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., did not appear despite being served twice. The Court examined the delay and applied the settled principles governing condonation applications. It found the delay reasonable and ordered that it be condoned. Consequently, the application was allowed, office objections were to be removed within eight weeks, and the appeal was to be listed for admission. No costs were awarded.

Issues considered

  • Whether a delay of 17 days in filing an appeal under Section 260A of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961 can be condoned?

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • condonation of delay
  • Income‑Tax Act
  • Section 260A
  • procedural law
  • appeal admission

Judgment

           Digitally
           signed by
           PRAJAKTA
PRAJAKTA   SAGAR
SAGAR
VARTAK
           VARTAK
           Date:
                                                                                            10-IA 3736-24.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. 3736 OF 2024
                                                       IN
                                      INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 8661 OF 2024

                    The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2                … Applicant/Appellant
                          Vs.
                    Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.                                … Respondent
                                                     _________

                    Mr. N. C. Mohanty for the applicant/appellant.
                                                     __________
                                                 CORAM:         G. S. KULKARNI &
                                                                DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
                                                 DATE:          29 AUGUST, 2026.
                    P.C.

                    1.       The respondent has been served twice, however, none appears on behalf of
                    the respondent.
                    2.       By this Interim Application, the applicant/appellant has prayed for
                    condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the aforesaid Appeal under Section
                    260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
                    3.     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.
                    4.     The application is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).
                    5.     Office objections, if any, be removed within a period of eight weeks from
                    today.
                    6.     List the appeal for admission after the removal of office objections.
                    7.     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


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.