Allowed¶19

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 4 v. Shreya Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay HC19 Dec 2025IA/4176/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 42 days; Section 260A Income Tax Act; Interim Application No. 4176 of 2025 in Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 22400 of 2023; Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 4 v. Shreya Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.; Bombay High Court; sufficient cause; interest of justice; substantial question of law; appeal listed for admission; removal of objections within ten weeks; no costs; respondent served but unrepresented.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the 42-day delay in filing Income Tax Appeal (L) No. 22400 of 2023 under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (prayer clause (a)); the Appeal to be listed for admission subject to removal of objections within ten weeks; Interim Application disposed of in the above terms with no costs. ¶19

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 4 vs Shreya Life Sciences… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

137.IA.4176.2025.DOC

¶2

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

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4176 OF 2025 IN

¶4

INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.22400 OF 2023

¶5

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 4 Applicant versus Shreya Life Sciences Pvt.Ltd. Respondent

¶6

Mr.Suresh Kumar for Applicant. None 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 42 days. Though the Respondent/Assessee being served, nobody appears for the Respondent. There is no written opposition filed to this application. There cannot be any dispute as to 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 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: 2025.12.2414:40:16 +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 that the delay is condoned.

¶14