DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. RAMESHWAR DAYAL EDUCATION TRUST, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6028/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 September 2026AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the applications for condonation of delay of 27 days in filing the appeals by the Revenue are allowed. The Tribunal found that the explanation for the delay did not indicate mala fides and that the Revenue had not gained anything by the delay. Regarding the substantive issue, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had followed the ratio of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. to hold the assessment order illegal. The Tribunal further noted that the mere pendency of an SLP against a High Court judgment has no consequence. Therefore, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were considered devoid of merit and were rejected. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-28, New Delhi) filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against orders dated 19.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi. These orders were passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging assessment orders dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 153C of the Act for Assessment Years (AY) 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13. The Revenue's appeals were filed with a delay of 27 days, for which applications for condonation of delay were submitted. The assessee is Rameshwar Dayal Education Trust.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 27 days in filing the appeals by the Revenue is liable to be condoned? (Question of procedure) 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in PCIT, Central Circle-1, Delhi vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 52/2024) when the Revenue had filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against that decision? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The assessee relied on the impugned order passed by the CIT(A). Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) was not justified in relying on the judgment in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. because the Revenue had filed an SLP against that decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Vinod Gupta, AR
For Respondent: Shri Robin Rawal, CIT- DR
Hearing: 22.09.2026Pronounced: 22.09.2026

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA No. 6026/Del/2026
ITA No. 6027/Del/2026
ITA No. 6028/Del/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6026/Del/2026, A.Y. 2010-11 ITA No. 6027/Del/2026, A.Y. 2011-12 ITA No. 6028/Del/2026, A.Y. 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Rameshwar Dayal Education Income Tax, Trust B-385, 2nd Floor, Office of the DCIT, Central Circle-28, Nirman Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAATR8426M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. Sh. Vinod Gupta, AR. Respondent by : Shri Robin Rawal, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 22.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement 22.09.2026

O R D E R PER BENCH: The applications for condonation of delay of 27 days in filing appeals and the appeals filed by the appellant/Revenue are against separate orders dated 19.01.2026 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income Tax

P a g e | 2 ITA No. 6026 to 6028/Del/2026 Rameshwar Dayal Education Trust

Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) arising out of separate assessment orders dated 31.03.2023 of ld. Assessing Officer/ DCIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO’) u/s 153C of the Act for A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13 respectively.

2.

All the three appeals involving similar facts, grounds and issues. So, all three appeals were heard together.

3.

In application for condonation of delay of 27 days, it is submitted that the delay was due to heavy workload in time barring scrutiny cases, appeal effect etc. The explanation for condonation of delay does not smack of mala fides as the Appellant/Revenue has not gained anything by not filing of appeal within period of limitation. Therefore, the delay of 27 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal is condoned.

4.

Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in relying upon judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of PCIT, Central Circle-1, Delhi vs. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 52/2024 even when Revenue has filed a SLP against decision.

5.

Ld. Representative of respondent/assessee relied on impugned order.

P a g e | 3 ITA No. 6026 to 6028/Del/2026 Rameshwar Dayal Education Trust

6.

From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 19.01.2026, by following ratio of Jurisdictional High Court in Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd. had held the impugned assessment order dated 31.03.2023 to be illegal. Mere pendency of SLP against the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court is of no consequence. Therefore, the grounds of appeal being devoid of merit are rejected. The grounds of appeal of Revenue are rejected.

7.

All applications of revenue for condonation of delay of 27 days are allowed and appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.09.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY AWASTHI) (VIMAL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 23.09.2026 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →