COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DISCIPLESHIP CENTRE

ITA - 1467 / 2010HC Delhi27 September 20101 pages

For Petitioner: PREM LATA BANSAL

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Delhi clarified that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's direction for the grant of condonation of delay under Rule 18AAAA was intended for the Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions). The Tribunal's order was not meant to confer this power upon itself. The Court accepted the submission that the power to condone delay under Rule 18AAAA rests with the Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions). The assessee's counsel did not dispute this position and confirmed that an application had been filed with the Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions). The High Court's decision was to provide this clarification. The appeal was disposed of with this clarification. No specific finding was made on the merits of the delay condonation itself, as the issue was procedural interpretation.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench 'B'. The Appellant contended that the ITAT's order was unclear, suggesting the ITAT had conferred jurisdiction upon itself to condone delay under Rule 18AAAA, a power that actually rests with the Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions). The assessee (Respondent), represented by Mr. Yogesh Jagia, did not dispute this. The assessee confirmed that, pursuant to the ITAT's order, an application for condonation of delay was filed before the Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) on December 15, 2009. The appeal was filed for the assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The dispute pertains to the interpretation of the ITAT's power to condone delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has the power to condone delay under Rule 18AAAA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, or if this power exclusively vests with the Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions)? (Question of law, concerning the interpretation of Rule 18AAAA). Assessee's Contention: The assessee did not dispute the position that the power to condone delay under Rule 18AAAA rests with the Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions). The assessee confirmed filing an application before the Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) in pursuance of the ITAT's order. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the ITAT's order was unclear and appeared to confer the jurisdiction to condone delay upon itself, whereas this power belongs to the Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Rule 18AAAA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI #10 ITA 1467/2010 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Adv. . versus . DISCIPLESHIP CENTRE ..... Respondent Through Mr.Yogesh Jagia with Mr.Amit Sood, Advs. CORAM: HON?BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN . O R D E R 27.09.2010 . In course of hearing, Mrs. P.L. Bansal submitted that the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ?B? (for short ?the tribunal?) is not clear inasmuch as on a perusal of the order passed by the tribunal it transpires that as if the tribunal has conferred the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to condone delay as per Rule 18AAAA though the said power rests with the Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions). Mr.Yogesh Jagia, learned counsel appearing for the assessee did not dispute the said position. In fact, it is contended by him that in pursuance of the order passed by the tribunal, he has filed an application before the Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions) on 15th December, 2009. In . . ITA No.1467/2010 page 1 of 2 view of the aforesaid, we clarify that the tribunal?s direction for grant of condonation of delay under Rule 18AAAA is meant for Director General of Income Tax (Exemptions). With the aforesaid clarification, the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. . . CHIEF JUSTICE . . . SEPTEMBER 27, 2010 MANMOHAN, J kapil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITA No.1467/2010 page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →