PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 10 DELHI vs. JAGAT JEWELS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/133/2026HC DelhiDLHC01108548202317 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court condoned the delay of 780 days in refiling the appeal, accepting the reasons stated in the application filed by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The reasoning for dismissal was based solely on the submission by the learned counsel for the appellant that the tax effect in the appeal fell below the limits prescribed by the CBDT Circulars No. 5/2024 and 9/2024. The High Court found this submission to be in order and proceeded to dismiss the appeal. No other issues were decided on merits. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limits, as per CBDT circulars, are to be dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeal, ITA 133/2026, was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Delhi (the appellant/revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). There was a significant delay of 780 days in refiling the appeal, for which the revenue filed CM APPL. 10897/2026. The ITAT order being challenged is not specified, nor are the assessment year(s) or the amount in dispute. The procedural history is limited to the delay in refiling and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 780 days in refiling the appeal should be condoned. The revenue argued that the delay was due to reasons stated in their application. The respondent (assessee) did not record any arguments on this point. 2. Whether the appeal should be dismissed on the grounds of tax effect being below the prescribed limit. The revenue contended that the tax effect in the instant appeal falls below the limits prescribed in CBDT Circular No. 5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 read with Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. The respondent (assessee) did not record any arguments on this point.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 133/2026 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 10 DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC and Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, JSC and Ms. Nupur Sharma, Adv. versus JAGAT JEWELS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Akash Ojha, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %

17.02.2026 CM APPL. 10897/2026 (delay 780 days in refiling appeal) 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 780 days in refilling the appeal, is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed of. ITA 133/2026 3. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the tax effect in the instant appeal falls below the limit prescribed in CBDT Circular No.5/2024 dated 15.03.2024 read with Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. 2. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed. DINESH MEHTA, J VINOD KUMAR, J FEBRUARY 17, 2026/ss This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/02/2026 at 12:46:24

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →