logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 GHC 031 print Preview print Next print
Case No : R/Civil Application (For Condonation Of Delay) No. 2787 Of 2025 In F/Tax Appeal/15146/2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Parties : Matruashish Co.Op. Housing Society Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 5(2)(1) Ahmedabad
Appearing Advocates : For the Applicant: Jimi S. Patel(10578), Advocate. For the Respondent: Dev D. Patel(8264), Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 02-02-2026
Head Note :-
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 260 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:
- section 260 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

2. Catch Words:
- limitation
- condonation of delay
- appeal
- miscellaneous application
- writ petition

3. Summary:
The applicant sought condonation of a 376‑day delay in filing an appeal against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 22.12.2023. The applicant argued that the order was received on the same day, but the limitation period should be counted from the receipt of the Tribunal’s order dismissing the miscellaneous application dated 14.02.2025, which was received on 28.02.2025. The applicant further contended that deliberations on whether to challenge the original order or the dismissal of the miscellaneous application caused the delay. The respondent opposed condonation, citing the delay. The Court found the applicant’s explanation satisfactory, noting that the appeal was filed after the dismissal order, and therefore allowed the condonation.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

Oral Order

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. The present application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 376 days in filing the captioned appeal.

2. Learned advocate Mr.Jimi Patel has submitted that Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") has passed the impugned order on 22.12.2023 and the same was received by the applicant on the very same date and accordingly, limitation for preferring the appeal expired on 20.04.2024. It is submitted that after perusal of the impugned order, the applicant bona fidely believed that the impugned order required rectification as the Tribunal has not considered vital argument of one of the possible view being taken by Assessing Officer as well as the judgement of the Apex Court, which was relied upon against the applicant, was not confronted to the applicant and has also not considered the vital documents being Resolutions dated 28.08.2015 and 30.08.2015. He has submitted that if the contentions raised by the applicant were considered, outcome of the appeal would be otherwise.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Jimi Patel has submitted that thus, the applicant preferred Miscellaneous Application No.60/Ahd/2024 on 07.03.2024 before the Tribunal to rectify the error however, the same has been dismissed vide order dated 14.02.2025, which was received by the applicant on 28.02.2025. It is submitted that if the date of receipt of order rejecting the Misc. Application would be taken into consideration and period of 120 days to prefer appeal as provided under section 260 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") is counted from the date of receipt of order of the Tribunal, there is no delay in filling the appeal.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Jimi Patel has further submitted that on receipt of the order of the Tribunal, the applicant has pondered over the possibility of correct course of action to be adopted in matter and in such deliberation, the applicant received some diverge opinion i.e. whether to challenge the original order of Tribunal dated 22.12.2023 or to challenge the order rejecting Misc. Application dated 14.02.2025 by preferring the writ petition. He has submitted that in such process, some time has lapsed and ultimately, the applicant decided to pursue both the remedies i.e. to prefer the appeal against the original order as well as to file a writ petition against the order of dismissal passed in Misc. Application and hence, the delay may be condoned.

5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Dev Patel appearing for the respondent has opposed the present application and urged that delay may not be condoned.

6. We find the explanation tendered by the applicant satisfactory since Misc. Application is preferred by the applicant, which was decided on 14.02.2025 and thereafter, the captioned appeal has been filed.

7. Under the circumstances, the present application stands allowed. Delay is hereby condoned. Registry to give regular number to the captioned appeal and list the same in seriatim.
 
  CDJLawJournal