DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E) vs. PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1034/2017HC DelhiDLHC01323631201722 November 2017Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, finding the appeal to be highly belated and re-filed after 1020 days. Consequently, the appeal itself was dismissed. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose because the facts of the case were squarely covered by the High Court's prior judgment in Director of Income Tax Vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission, 73 DTR (Del) 195. This precedent established that income in such cases should be treated as earned by a society/Trust set up for a charitable purpose under Section 10(23C) read with Section 12A of the Income Tax Act. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Director of Income Tax (E), filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order concerning the respondent, Prakash Educational Society. The appeal was filed belatedly, re-filed after 1020 days. The High Court noted that the facts of the present case were squarely covered by a previous judgment of the same court in Director of Income Tax Vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission, 73 DTR (Del) 195. The amount in dispute is not specified. The procedural history involves the filing of a belated appeal and an application for condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal, filed after a delay of 1020 days, should be entertained, turning on the interpretation of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act and the court's discretion regarding condonation of delay. 2. Whether the income of the society/Trust set up for a charitable purpose should be treated as earned under Section 10(23C) read with Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, as per the judgment in Director of Income Tax Vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission. Assessee's arguments: No arguments were recorded for the respondent (Prakash Educational Society) as none appeared. Revenue's arguments: The appellant (Director of Income Tax) argued that the appeal should be heard on merits. The court's decision on the delay application implies that the revenue sought condonation of the significant delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 10(23C),Section 12A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA 1034/2017 Page 1 $~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1034/2017 DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (E) ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia and Mr. Gaurav Khetrapal, Advs. versus PRAKASH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ..... Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R % 22.11.2017 CM No. 42251/2017 (condonation of delay) This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act is highly belated and was re-filed after 1020 days. The application for delay therefore cannot be entertained and is dismissed. ITA 1034/2017 The Court notices that the facts of this case are squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Director of Income Tax Vs. Vishwa Jagriti Mission, 73 DTR (Del) 195; where it was held that the income in this case had to be treated as earned by the society/Trust set up for charitable purpose under Section 10(23C) read with Section

ITA 1034/2017 Page 2 12A of the Income Tax Act. No substantial question of law therefore arises. The appeal is consequently dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J NOVEMBER 22, 2017 ‘rs’

More judgments on Section 10(23C)

All 713 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(23C) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →