Allowed¶3

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Mumbai v. Jsw Investment Pvt. Ltd. Ay 13 14 Ita 1087MUM2023

Bombay HC18 Apr 2026IA/2597/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay; 83 days delay; Section 260A Income Tax Act; sufficient cause; substantial question of law; Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 Mumbai; JSW Investment Pvt. Ltd.; prayer clause (a); appeal listed for admission; removal of objections within eight weeks; no costs; Bombay High Court interim application disposed.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 83 days in filing Income Tax Appeal (L) No.18300 of 2024 condoned; interim application 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; no costs. ¶3

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Mumbai vs Jsw Investment Pvt. Ltd… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶3

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 83 days in filing Income Tax Appeal (L) No.18300 of 2024 (under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act) should be condoned.

¶1

Court's answer

Considering the settled position in law in judgments of the Supreme Court on condonation of delay, and the facts set out in the memo of the application, the reasons as set out provide an appropriate justification and sufficient cause for the 83-day delay; the Applicant/Revenue ought not to suffer or be rendered remediless in pursuing the appeal, and the delay is condoned in the interest of justice.

¶2

Ratio / Principle

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

¶3

Key takeaways

The appeal is to be listed for admission, subject to removal of objections, if any, within eight weeks from the date of the order.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), 18 April 2026 (G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.) - Interim Application No.2597 of 2024 in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.18300 of 2024 - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Mumbai (Applicant/Revenue) v. JSW Investment Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent/assessee) - condonation of delay of 83 days in filing the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act - Respondent served but unrepresented; no written opposition filed - considering settled Supreme Court principles on condonation of delay and the reasons in the application memo, the Court found the reasons to provide appropriate justification and sufficient cause, holding that in the facts of the case the Applicant/Revenue ought not to suffer or be rendered remediless in pursuing the appeal, which raises a substantial question of law - delay condoned in the interest of justice - application 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; no costs.

¶1

1 9.IA.2597.2024.DOC

¶2

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

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2597 OF 2024 IN INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.18300 OF 2024

¶4

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 Mumbai

¶5

Applicant

¶6

versus

¶7

JSW Investment Pvt.Ltd.

¶8

Respondent

¶9

Mr.Vikas T.Khanchandani for Applicant

¶10

None for Respondent

¶11

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

¶12

DATE: 18^th April 2026

¶13

P.C.

¶14

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 Respondents are served however, they are not represented as Mr.Khanchandani would state. The delay which is sought to be condoned is of 83 days. Although the Respondent/assessee is served, however, none appears for the Respondent/Assessee. There is no written opposition filed to this application. Considering 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 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.

¶15

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

¶16

M.S.Thatte

¶17

2 9.IA.2597.2024.DOC

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

The appeal accordingly be listed for admission, subject to removal of objections, if any, to be removed within eight weeks from today.

¶21

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

¶22

(AARTI SATHE, J.)

¶23

M.S.Thatte

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Mumbai v. Jsw Investment Pvt. Ltd. Ay 13 14 Ita 1087MUM2023

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Mumbai v. Jsw Investment Pvt. Ltd. Ay 13 14 Ita 1087MUM2023

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

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

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