Bombay High Court
PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - SILIGURIversusZYDUS WELLNESS PRODUCTS LIMITED
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the 113‑day delay should be condoned and allowed the interim application.
Summary
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Siliguri filed an appeal (Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 19373 of 2024) against Zydus Wellness Products Limited. The applicant sought condonation of a 113‑day delay in filing the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent raised only an oral opposition and filed no written objection to the condonation application. The Court examined the averments and, finding a sufficient case for condonation and no written opposition, held that justice required allowing the application. Consequently, the Court granted condonation of delay, directing that any office objections be removed within eight weeks or the appeal will be dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 113 days in filing an income‑tax appeal under Section 260A can be condoned
Legislation cited
- Income Tax Act, 1961 — s. 260A
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- Income Tax Act
- Section 260A
- interim application
- procedural law
Judgment
12-IA-769-25 IN ITXAL.DOC
JYOTI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAJESH
MANE ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
JYOTI RAJESH
MANE
Date: 2026.08.03
12:57:41 +0530
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 769 OF 2025
IN
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 19373 OF 2024
Pr Commissioner of Income tax
Siliguri … Applicant
Versus
Zydus Wellness Products Limited AY
2016 17 ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Vikas T. Khanchandani, for Applicant.
Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala i/b. Lumiere Law Partners, for Respondents .
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 31 JULY 2026
P.C.
1. We have heard Mr. Khanchandani, learned counsel for the applicant
and Ms. Amalsadvala, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. By this interim application, the applicant has prayed for condonation of
delay of 113 days caused in filing the aforesaid appeal under the provisions of
Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. We have perused the averments as made in the application, which make
out a sufficient case for the delay to be condoned. Also, there is no written
opposition placed on record on behalf of the respondent to this application,
although an oral opposition.
4. In the aforesaid circumstances, and in the interest of justice, the
application deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer
clause (a).
Page 1 of 2
Mane
12-IA-769-25 IN ITXAL.DOC
5. Office objections, if any, be removed within a period of eight weeks
from today, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference
to the Court.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 2 of 2
Mane
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.