UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS, DEPARTMENT OF SPORTS (CWG CELL),DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-36, DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the present appeal is a duplicate of a previously decided appeal for the same assessment year. Therefore, the second appeal against the same order is not maintainable.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a single appeal for two assessment years (2008-09 and 2009-10). The Tribunal pointed out that separate appeals were required. The assessee then filed separate appeals, one of which is the present appeal for AY 2008-09.
What were the issues?
Maintainability of a second appeal when a previous appeal for the same assessment year and against the same order has already been decided.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C”, DELHI
ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 19.11.2018, for assessment year 2008-09.
The Registry has pointed a defect that the appeal is time barred by 2059 days.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee/appellant explaining the reason for delay in filing of present appeal submitted that the CIT(A) vide impugned order had (AY 2008-09) decided appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 vide single order, the assessee was under a bonafide impression that since appeals for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 a single appeal is required to be filed for both assessment years. Accordingly, the assessee filed common for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. When the appeal was taken up for hearing by the Tribunal, the Bench ppointed that single appeal cannot be filed for two assessment years. Accordingly, the assessee filed two separate appeals for AY 2008-09 & 2009-10. The original appeal was filed within the period of limitation. It was only the appeals filed consequent to the defect pointed by the Bench, separate appeals for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10 were filed. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee has also filed application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal citing aforesaid reasons causing delay.
During the course of hearing, a specific query was raised by the Bench on locus of Union of India, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Department of Sports (CWG Cell) Delhi to the present appeal. The ld. Counsel explained that Organizing Committee Commonwealth Games, 2010 (a Society Registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860) was setup with the main object to prepare, organize and conduct Commonwealth Games, 2010 in Delhi. Since, the main object for which said society was framed was fulfilled, the said committee was wouned up on 07.08.2017 and all its assets and liabilities were transferred to the Department of Sports, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Govt. of India vide OM F.No.70-210/2016-SPVI dated 21.08.2017. Thus, w.e.f 08.08.2017 Department of Sports, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Govt. of India, New Delhi has stepped into the shoes of Organizing Committee Commonwealth Games, 2010, New Delhi and all residual work relating to Organizing Committee (AY 2008-09) Commonwealth Games, 2010 are handled by the Department of Sports (Common Wealth Games, Delhi, 2010 Cell). Now these appeals before the Tribunal have been filed by the Department of Sports, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, CWG Cell, Govt. of India.
We have heard the submissions made by ld. Counsel for the assessee. The assessee had filed single appeal in for two assessment years i.e. AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Tribunal treated the said appeal for AY 2008-09 only and has decided the said appeal vide order dated 09.05.2025. Since, appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 has already been decided, the present appeal is a duplicate appeal assailing the order of CIT(A) for AY 2008-09. The second appeal against the same impugned order is not maintainable, therefore, this appeal is dismissed, as such.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026