Disposed¶17

Rakesh Kumar GOYAL-2017-2018 v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central CIRCLE-3(1)-MUMBAI

Bombay HC20 Jan 2026WP/2681/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of writ petition; condonation of delay in filing income tax appeal; Article 226 jurisdiction declined; appeal to be entertained on merits without limitation inquiry; all contentions kept open; Bombay High Court; Rakesh Kumar Goyal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3(1) Mumbai; WRIT PETITION NO. 2681 OF 2025; Income Tax Act appellate remedy; 4-week filing window; order dated January 20, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to avail the appellate remedies under the Income Tax Act; delay in filing the Appeal condoned provided it is filed within 4 weeks, in which case the Appeal shall be entertained on merits without going into limitation; all contentions, including those raised in the Petition, kept open. ¶17

Rakesh Kumar GOYAL-2017-2018 vs Assistant Commissioner of… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should exercise its extraordinary, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the Petitioner's writ petition. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The Court was not inclined to exercise its extraordinary, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of the Writ Petition.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

If the Appeal is filed by the Petitioner within a period of 4 weeks, the said Appeal shall be entertained on merits and without going into the question of limitation.

¶17

Key takeaways

The delay in filing the Appeal stands condoned, provided the Appeal is filed within a period of 4 weeks from the date of the order.ratio¶17
All contentions, including the contentions raised in the present Petition, are expressly kept open to be agitated in the Appeal proposed to be filed by the Petitioner.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Coram B. P. Colabawalla & Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ., order dated January 20, 2026, in Writ Petition No. 2681 of 2025 (Rakesh Kumar Goyal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle – 3(1), Mumbai & Ors.). After argument, the Division Bench was not inclined to exercise its extraordinary, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, withdrew the Petition with liberty to avail the appellate remedies under the Income Tax Act, submitting that the appellate remedy may be time barred. The Court condoned the delay in filing the Appeal provided it was filed within 4 weeks, directed that such Appeal be entertained on merits without going into the question of limitation, and expressly kept all contentions, including those raised in the Petition, open to be agitated in the Appeal.

¶1

TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE

¶2

Digitally signed byTRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2026.01.27 18:09:09 +0530

¶3

sr.13-wp-2681-2025.doc

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2681 OF 2025 Rakesh Kumar Goyal .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax Central Circle – 3(1)- Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Adv. Madhur Agrawal a/w Adv. Punit J. Shah i/b Adv. Atul K. Jasani, for the Petitioner.

¶9

Adv. P. C. Chhotaray a/w Adv. Sangita Choure for Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JANUARY 20, 2026

¶11

P. C.

¶12

After the above Writ Petition was argued for some time, and we

¶13

were not inclined to exercise our extraordinary, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Agrawal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, on instructions, stated that he would like to withdraw the above Petition with liberty to avail of the Appellate remedies available under the Income Tax Act. He, however, submitted that the Appellate remedy may be time barred and therefore this Court ought to condone the delay in filing the Appeal.

¶14

Mansi shelke

¶15

Page 1 of 2 JANUARY 20, 2026

¶16

sr.13-wp-2681-2025.doc

¶17

Having heard Mr. Agrawal on this limited aspect, we are of the view that if the Appeal is filed by the Petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from today, the said Appeal shall be entertained on merits and without going into the question of limitation. In other words, we have hereby condoned the delay in filing the Appeal, provided the same is filed within a period of 4 weeks from today.

¶18

It is needless to clarify that all contentions, including the contentions raised in the present Petition, are expressly kept open to be agitated in the Appeal proposed to be filed by the Petitioner.

¶19

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶20

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶21

Page 2 of 2 JANUARY 20, 2026

¶22

Mansi shelke

Rakesh Kumar GOYAL-2017-2018 v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central CIRCLE-3(1)-MUMBAI

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar GOYAL-2017-2018 v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central CIRCLE-3(1)-MUMBAI

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Teksons Private Limited vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai 4

Ramchand Murlidhar Raimalani 2021 22 vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 19(3)

Deesha Leasecon Private Limited 2019 20 vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1)

Manjulaben Mafatlal Shah vs The Tax Recovery Officer 3, Ahmedabad

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4 Mumbai vs Skf India Limited

Popat Yadavrao Ingale vs Income Tax Officer Ward Silvassa Silvasa and Ors.