Disposed¶5

Ushaben Hitendra Ghadia v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 (1 )

Bombay HC6 Jan 2026IA/683/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay of about 504 days; sufficient cause; bonafide pursuit of miscellaneous application for rectification; rectification application disposed 16 October 2024; appeal filed 14 January 2025; Registry to number appeal, admission 27 January 2026; Income Tax Appeal (L); Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(1); Bombay High Court; Ushaben Hitendra Ghadia.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the delay of about 504 days in instituting the appeal; the Court further directed the Registry to number the appeal and place it for admission on 27 January 2026. ¶5

Ushaben Hitendra Ghadia vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 (1 ) — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 13-IA.683-25.docx

¶2

rsk

¶3

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

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.683 OF 2025

¶5

¶6

INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.1277 OF 2025

¶7

Ushaben Hitendra Ghadia : ApplicantAppellant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 (1) : Respondent.

¶10

Mr. Bhavik Chheda i/b Geetashri Bejjanki for the ApplicantAppellant.

¶11

Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma for the Respondent.

¶12

CORAM M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 06 JANUARY 2026

¶13

PC:-

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

This application seeks condonation of delay of about 504 days in instituting this appeal. The explanation is that after the impugned order was made the assessee filed a miscellaneous application seeking rectification. The assessee was under the impression that if rectification is allowed there would be no necessity for instituting an appeal.

¶16

The Miscellaneous application was however disposed of on 16 October 2024. Thereafter, the applicant was advised to

¶17

Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARISUBODH SUBODHKARVE KARVE Date: 2026.01.06 17:32:4 32 +0530

¶18

2 13-IA.683-25.docx

¶19

institute this appeal which was filed on 14 January 2025.

¶20

In the peculiar facts of this case, we think that the applicant was acting bonafide and consequently, there is sufficient cause to condone this delay. The applicant was bonafide pursuing this application for rectification and believed that if the same is allowed, there would be no occasion for filing an appeal. After the rectification application was disposed of within reasonable period, the appeal has been filed.

¶21

On cumulative consideration of the above facts and circumstances which make out a case for sufficient cause, we condone the delay and dispose of Interim Application 683 of 2025.

¶22

Registry to now number the appeal and place it for admission on 27 January 2026.

¶23

(Jitendra Jain, J.)

¶24

(M. S. Sonak, J.)

Ushaben Hitendra Ghadia v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 (1 )

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ushaben Hitendra Ghadia v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 (1 )

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

pr commissioner of income tax 2 vs the bombay dyeing and manufacturing Co. Ltd.

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 5 Mumbai vs Kec International Limited Ay 2015 16 Ita 4076 Mum 2023

Commissioner of Income Tax It 3 Mumbai vs Amrita Jhaveri

Ilaben K Ghadia vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 (1 )

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Mumbai vs Aadhar Wholesale Trading and Distributing Ltd.

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 4 vs Padmashree Dr D Y Patil University AABTP2448L