UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,DELHI vs. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE EXEMP 2(1), DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE,NEW DELHI

ITA No.1844/DEL/2026 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFMEDICAL SCIENCES IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1844/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICAL Vs. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SCIENCES, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UCMS, GTB Hospital Dilshad Garden, Circle Exemption 2(1), East 110095, Delhi. Civic Centre, Minto Road, PAN No. AAAAU8211E Delhi 110002. Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Shikhar Garg, Adv. Revenue by Shri Balkrishan Gopal, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 15.07.2026 Pronouncement on 17.07.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 25.06.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC.

1.1 The assessee is a not-for-profit organization, which is a constituent College of the University of Delhi. For the year under consideration, the assessee did not file his return of income under the belief that since the Institution was existing solely for the purposes of education, hence, there was no requirement to do so. Apparently, the assessee was unaware of the amendment brought in effect from 01.04.2016 whereby through Section 139(4C) of the Act, institutions claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act were required to furnish return of income as a 1

ITA No.1844/DEL/2026 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFMEDICAL SCIENCES condition for claiming exemption. It is seen that reassessment proceedings were initiated by the Ld. AO for filing the return of income. Thereafter the assessee filed its return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act on 26.04.2022 and the total income of Rs.241,04,200/- was accepted by the Ld. AO, as declared by the assessee. It appears that the assessee realized that it had not claimed exemption on income from other sources amounting to Rs.241,04,202/-.

1.2 The assessee realized its mistake and approached the Ld. CIT(A) with the request that due to an error of a computation, the income from other sources had not been claimed as exempt and therefore it was not granted as such. The assessee averred before the Ld. CIT(A) that exemption was required to be granted even on that amount. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the case of Goetze (India) Limited reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC), and denied the relief sought for by the assessee.

1.3 Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds which are lengthy and argumentative, but they effectively request for considering the claim of the assessee for allowing exemption on the impugned amount representing income from other sources.

ITA No.1844/DEL/2026 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFMEDICAL SCIENCES the assessee should not be penalized. The Ld. AR assailed the finding of Ld. CIT(A) to the extent that the case of Goetze (supra) applied to AOs and not to appellate forums. The Ld. AR relied on the case of Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. reported in 306 ITR 42 (Del.), to canvass the point that there is no prohibition on the powers of the ITAT to entertain an additional ground which would be essential for arriving at a just decision in a matter before it. The Ld. AR also stated that there was no opportunity available to file a revised return of income since the return was filed in response to a notice u/s 148 of the Act.

2.1 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (supra) had clearly mandated that a claim not tendered through a return of income needed to be put forth through a revised return only.

“4. The decision in question is that the power of the Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is to entertain for the first time a point of law provided the fact on the basis of which the issue of law can be raised before the Tribunal. The decision does not in any way relate to the power of the Assessing

ITA No.1844/DEL/2026 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFMEDICAL SCIENCES Officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited to the power of the assessing authority and does not impinge on the power of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” [Emphasis added] Further, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in the case of Tata-Aldesa JV reported in 159 taxmann.com 534 (Telangana) [2024], has discussed the applicability of the case of Goetze (supra), as under: -

“25. Mr. Prasad has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra 2). In that case, after fling of return assessee sought to make a claim for deduction by way of a letter addressed to the Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer disallowed it on the ground that there was no such provision in the Act allowing amendment in the return of income without filing revised return. This was carried forward in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) who had allowed the appeal of the assessee. On further appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal by the Revenue, the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was set aside. Ultimately, the matter reached the Supreme Court. Supreme Court noted that the decision rendered by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was under section 254 of the Act. Therefore, it deals with power of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to entertain for the first time a point of law. It was observed that the same can be raised provided the facts on the basis of which the issue of law arises can be traced to the orders of the authorities below. Supreme Court while upholding the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and dismissing the civil appeal clarified that the issue involved in the said case was limited to the power of the assessing officer and does not infringe on the power of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Act. 26. On due consideration, we are of the view that the aforesaid decision cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case as facts are distinguishable. As already discussed above, the issue in the present case relates to the power of the Principal Commissioner etc., under section 264 of the Act. As we have discussed above, there is no limitation on exercise of such a power by the Principal Chief Commissioner etc.”

ITA No.1844/DEL/2026 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFMEDICAL SCIENCES The case laws relied on by the Ld. AR [Jai Parabolic Spring Ltd. (supra)] is on the general proposition that the Appellate Tribunal can entertain an additional ground in the interest of justice. While there can be no quarrel with this proposition it is clear that this case is on slightly different propositions and of not much use in the present matter. However, we are conscious of the fact that ultimately the demands of justice have to, at times, override merely technical considerations. In this case, what is evident is that the assessee has been consistently, in the immediately preceding year and also in the immediately succeeding year, been claiming the income from other sources as exempt and the same has been duly allowed by the AO’s for those years. Accordingly, what is not in doubt is that the impugned item of income is also to be treated as exempt. Once this conclusion is drawn then there is no hesitation in holding that even for this year the impugned receipt deserves to be treated as exempt by the Ld. AO. Accordingly, we direct that at the time of giving effect to this appellate order the Ld. AO must re-compute the exemption available to the assessee by including the impugned receipt along with the grants from the Government, which have in any case being treated as exempt. To this extent the finding in the impugned order is set aside. We direct accordingly.

ITA No.1844/DEL/2026 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OFMEDICAL SCIENCES 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.07.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 17.07.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI