Allowed¶18

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 1 v. Tata Communications Ltd.

Bombay HC19 Dec 2025IA/18/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 49 days' delay; Section 260A Income Tax Act; Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 v. Tata Communications Limited; Bombay High Court; sufficient cause; unopposed interim application; revenue appeal to be listed for admission; removal of objections within ten weeks; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Interim Application allowed in terms of prayer clause (a): delay of 49 days in filing the appeal condoned; appeal to be listed for admission subject to removal of objections, if any, within ten weeks; no costs. ¶18

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 1 vs Tata Communications Ltd. — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

20.IA.18.2024.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.18 OF 2024 IN

¶4

INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.25959 OF 2023

¶5

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Applicant versus Tata Communications Limited Respondent

¶6

Mr.Suresh Kumar for Applicant. Mr.Anil R.Wani for the Respondent.

¶7

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &

¶8

AARTI SATHE, JJ.

¶9

DATE: 19^th December 2025

¶10

P.C.

¶11

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 49 days. On the Respondent/Assessee being served, the Respondent is represented by Mr.Anil Wani, learned counsel. There is no written opposition filed to this application. Mr.Anil Wani although has orally 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 condonation of 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 application, 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.

¶12

MANISH Digitally signed byMANISH SURESHRAO SURESHRAO THATTE THATTE Date: 2025.12.2412:00:41 +0530

¶13

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

Page 1 of 2

Manish Thatte

20.IA.18.2024.DOC

that the delay is condoned.

¶18