UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS, DEPARTMENT OF SPORTS (CWG CELL),DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-36, DELHI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “सी”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं
ŵी अवधेश कुमार िमŵा, लेखाकार सद˟ के समƗ

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “C”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आअसं.4828/िदʟी/2024(िन.व. 2009-10)
Union of India through Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports,
Department of Sports (CWG Cell),
CWG Cell, 2nd floor, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium,
Gate No. 10, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003
PAN: AAATO-1191-L

...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
बनाम Vs.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36,
Room No. 209 and 210, Aayakar Bhawan,
District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092

..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent

Assessee by : S/Shri Neeraj Chaudhary & Himanshu, Advocates
Department by : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing

:
06.08.2025

घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
06.08.2025
आदेश/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. 2. The appeal is time barred by 2059 days. The assessee has filed an application citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. 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 decided appeal of the 2
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 ITA No.1678/Del/2019 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.
After perusal of the same, we are satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the reasons for delay stated in application appears to be bonafide.
Thus, delay of 2059 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.
4. 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

3
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
Commonwealth Games, 2010 are handled by the Department of Sports (Common
Wealth Games, Delhi, 2010 Cell). In peculiar facts explained by the ld. Counsel for the appellant, locus of the Department of Sports (CWG Cell), Union of India is accepted.
5. Shri Neeraj Chaudhary, appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submitted that the impugned order has been passed in the name of a non existing entity. He pointed that during First Appellate proceedings, the fact of Organizing
Committee Commonwealth Games, 2010 being wound up w.e.f. 07.08.2017 was informed vide letter dated 14.09.2017. He placed on record copy of said letter.
The ld. Counsel further submitted that the CIT(A) has placed heavy reliance on unaudit report of CAG and Performance Audit Report without appreciating that such reports are subject to Parliament Scrutiny and are not conclusive or binding in Income Tax proceedings. He further pointed that the CIT(A) erred in disregarding additional evidences submitted under Rule 46A of the Income Tax
Rules. He thus, prayed for an opportunity to make submissions before the CIT(A) and furnish relevant documents in support of submissions.
6. Shri Om Prakash, representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) in a detailed order has confirmed the additions made by AO. However, the ld. DR raised no serious objection in remitting the appeal back to the CIT(A) to consider relevant documents in support of the contentions raised by the assessee/appellant.

4
7. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The CIT(A) vide impugned order has confirmed the additions made by AO. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the same has been passed in the name of a non existing entity. Organizing Committee Commonwealth Games, 2010 was wound up w.e.f. 07.08.2017. The same was intimated to the CIT(A), still the impugned order was passed in the name of Organizing Committee Commonwealth Games,
2010, a non existing entity on the date of passing the order. Further, the order has been passed primarily based on observations made in assessment order without affording effective opportunity of making submissions to the assessee.
Taking into consideration entire facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.
8. The CIT(A) shall also considered additional evidences, if any filed by the appellant during the course of submissions and may seek remand report on the same.
9. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on Wedne ay the 06th day of August,
2025. (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA)
(VIKAS AWASTHY)
लेखाकार सद᭭य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 06/08/2025

NV/-

5
ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT/CIT(A)
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.

BY ORDER,
////

(Asstt.