Allowed¶21

Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. I T O Ward 5 1 3

Condonation of delay – Interim Application under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act – 10-day delay in filing Income Tax Appeal (L) No.30014 of 2024

Bombay HC18 Apr 2026IA/1890/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Directi Internet Solution vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1)(3); Bombay High Court; condonation of delay; 10 days delay; Section 260A Income Tax Act; Income Tax Appeal (L) No.30014 of 2024; Interim Application No.1890 of 2025; sufficient cause; substantial question of law; appeal listed for admission subject to removal of objections within eight weeks; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the 10-day delay in filing the appeal allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); appeal to be listed for admission subject to removal of objections, if any, within eight weeks; interim application disposed of with no costs. ¶21

Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs I T O Ward 5 1 3 — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

1 901.IA.1890.2025.DOC

¶2

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

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1890 OF 2025

¶4

¶5

INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.30014 OF 2024

¶6

Directi Internet Solution

¶7

Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1)(3)

¶10

Respondent

¶11

Ms.Jas Sanghavi i/by PDS Legal for Applicant. Mr.Vikas T.Khanchandani for Respondent

¶12

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ.

¶13

DATE: 18^th April 2026

¶14

P.C.

¶15

Digitally signed by MANISHSURESHRAO MANISHSURESHRAOTHATTE THATTE Date: 2026.04.18 17:06:35 +0530

¶16

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 10 days. The Respondent is represented by Mr.Vikas Khanchandani, learned counsel. There is no written opposition filed to this application. Mr.Khanchandani 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 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 application, the Applicant 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.

¶17

In the aforesaid circumstances, having perused the memo of the application and considering the period of delay not being very gross, in our

¶18

M.S.Thatte

¶19

2 901.IA.1890.2025.DOC

¶20

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.

¶21

The application is hence allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶22

The appeal accordingly be listed for admission, subject to removal of

¶23

objections, if any, to be removed within eight weeks from today.

¶24

Interim application stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

¶25

(AARTI SATHE, J.)

¶26

M.S.Thatte

Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. I T O Ward 5 1 3

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. I T O Ward 5 1 3

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Captain Vilas Waman Katre vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range 7

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1 vs Hiranandani Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 3 vs Dilip B Jiwarajka

Ms Franklin Wadcorpp India Pvt. Ltd. vs Dcit Circle 1 3 2 Mumbai

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 4 Mumbai vs the Official Liquidator Bombay High Court

Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax 6 Mumbai vs Strides Pharma Science Limited - Ay 2012-13