Leena Power Tech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
The judgment addresses the issues identified in the case record.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 254(2)
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- See the source-driven case record below.
Material facts and background
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 37437 OF 2024 Leena Power Tech Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income – Tax Circle – 15(I)(2) and Ors. …Respondents ______________________________________________________ Mr Rahul Hakani, a/w Mr Anubhav Singh, Ms Siddhi Sawant, for the Petitioner. Mr Akshileshwar Sharma, for the Respondent-Income Tax. ______________________________________________________ DARSHAN PRAKASH PATIL Digitally signed by DARSHAN PRAKASH PATIL Date: 2025.02.26 11:53:59 +0530
November 2023 made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”) dismissing the Petitioner’s Miscellaneous Application No.231/MUM/2022 in ITA No.1313/MUM/2020 as being barred by limitation.
the Petitioner, submits that there was no delay in instituting the Miscellaneous Application, given the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 10 January 2022 in Sou Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 concerning cognisance for extension of limitation during the COVID period. He submits that assuming a marginal delay of three months, sufficient cause was shown for the condonation of delay. 5.
impugned order may be set aside, delay, if any, condoned and directions be issued to the ITAT to decide Petitioner’s Miscellaneous Application on merits. 6.
Respondents, submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order of 10 January 2022 did not apply in the present case because, according to the Petitioner, the limitation period expired on 31 May 2022 and not within the period 15 March 2020 and 28 February 2022. Therefore, he submitted that such a plea was correctly not even raised before the Tribunal and finds no reflection in the impugned order. 7.
the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), a rectification application must be filed within six months from the date of knowledge of the order sought to be rectified. He submitted that beyond this period, even the Tribunal has no power to condone delay. He relied on Ram Baburao Salve Vs. Assessing Officer, Ward (17) (3)(1), Mumbai & Ors1, in support of this contention.
Appellant / assessee submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Revenue / respondent submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
the Hon’ble Supreme Court was never raised by the Petitioner before the ITAT, still, upon consideration of the same, we find that the same would not assist the Petitioner in the facts of the present case. 15.
Operative decision and relief
be irrelevant. The ITAT has also not gone into the issue of sufficient cause but by relying on the decision of the Karnataka High Court Re. Karuturi Global Ltd. Vs. DCIT2 held that it has no power to condone the delay in entertaining an application under Section 254(2) of the IT Act. 2
bench in Ram Baburao Salve (supra) and the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Re. Karuturi Global Ltd. (supra), we see no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. 18.
Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment
- No reliable precedent list was extracted automatically; use the full judgment for the citation chain.
This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.
Ratio and legal principle
The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Quashed / set aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Why this judgment matters
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Income Tax. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
Practitioner action points
- Maintain a date-and-payment matrix for transfer, agreement, possession, investment and construction; capital-gains exemptions commonly turn on this chronology.
- For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.
Do not over-read this case
- The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy
- Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result.
- Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
How to apply this decision in practice
This Bombay High Court decision should be used by matching the client’s facts to the precise controversy in the case—the disputed issue—rather than by relying only on the result. Start with the statutory version applicable to the relevant year and compare it with 254(2). Amendments, notifications, later Supreme Court/High Court decisions and a different procedural stage can materially change the answer.
For an assessment or litigation file, retain the documents that prove the factual bridge on which the judgment turns: the original notice/order, replies and objections, acknowledgements of filing/service, ledger and banking trail where relevant, contracts or property instruments where relevant, and the complete appellate chronology. If the case succeeds on jurisdiction or natural justice, do not assume the same outcome where the authority cures that defect. If it succeeds on evidence, identify exactly which documents the Court or Tribunal considered persuasive.
For capital-gains/property matters, map ownership/right transferred, agreement and registration dates, possession, consideration flows, stamp valuation, investment dates and the exact nature of the asset. Small factual differences can move the case into a different charging or exemption provision.
Finin2min reliance rule: cite the case for the narrow legal proposition actually decided, record any contrary authority, and attach the full judgment to the working paper or litigation file. This reduces the risk of a headnote or short summary being used outside its factual and statutory context.
Verification before citation
Because this is a comparatively short order, the practical value lies in its precise procedural and factual setting rather than its length. Before citing it, compare the complete paper-book chronology, the statutory wording for the relevant year, the forum’s jurisdiction and any later appellate history. A short order can be decisive, but only for the proposition actually adjudicated. Finin2min therefore provides the full judgment PDF alongside this note so the primary reasoning can be checked rather than inferred from the summary alone.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence
Decision support built around the judgment: reliance, fact match, Q&A, section impact, related-case network and practical next steps.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | High Court |
|---|---|
| Reliance effect | Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. |
| Source integrity | A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending. |
| Subsequent history | Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. |
| Finin2min status | Later-history check open |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- Your dispute raises the same core issue: the principal issue.
- The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: 254(2).
- Your matter is at a comparable writ challenge stage.
- Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the Bombay High Court considered: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court ruling changes the legal position.
- The statutory provision was amended for your year or transaction.
- Your evidence, transaction structure, notice chronology or procedural stage differs on a fact the judgment treated as material.
- The case succeeded on a narrow jurisdictional/procedural defect that the authority has cured in your matter.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Leena Power Tech Engineers Pvt. Ltd.?
The judgment addresses the issues identified in the case record.
Which facts mattered most to the result?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 37437 OF 2024 Leena Power Tech Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
What did the Bombay High Court ultimately decide?
be irrelevant. The ITAT has also not gone into the issue of sufficient cause but by relying on the decision of the Karnataka High Court Re. Karuturi Global Ltd.
What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?
The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Quashed / set aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Which provisions should be checked before relying on the case?
The case engages 254(2). The relevant statutory version for Not stated in captured judgment metadata should be checked together with any later amendment, notification, circular and controlling higher-court authority.
When is this judgment most useful to a taxpayer or adviser?
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Income Tax . Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
What could make this judgment distinguishable or unsafe to rely on?
The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result. Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Can this judgment be cited as current law without another check?
Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending.
Section / provision impact
- 254(2) — 254(2) is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of the dispute. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
How the decision changes your analysis
Before using this authority, frame the issue under 254(2) and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.
The decision turns on the statutory and factual issues recorded above. The operative result is classified as Quashed / set aside. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.
Case network: similar and different outcomes
Closest related cases in the Finin2min repository
Related cases with a different result
Related-case links are repository similarity connections, not a claim that one judgment cites or overrules another. Use the cited-authority list and later-history check for formal precedent analysis.
Working-paper citation
Full judgment and source trail
Read / download the clean local judgment copy
| Packaged source class | SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING |
|---|---|
| Pages | 5 |
| SHA-256 | 4ca72275c14f568c57891afb433cc63a1cc4a5fc69f0c786842db42e253775c3 |
| Original source URL | Not exposed publicly. Original provenance retained only in the private source-closure ledger. |
| Source authentication | Sanitized local full-text copy - official primary replacement pending |