ROTARY INTERNATIONAL SOUTH ASIA OFFICE vs. DCIT CIRCLE EXEMP 2(1)-DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/14874/2025HC DelhiDLHC01072872202514 January 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned assessment order dated 30.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Act of 1961. The Court reasoned that the respondent-Department fairly conceded to the issue, acknowledging that the petitioner's reply dated 16.06.2025 was not considered. The Court found merit in the petitioner's argument that a renewed demand against a charitable organization without considering its reply is arbitrary and contrary to natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO is directed to consider the petitioner's reply dated 16.06.2025, as well as the earlier reply dated 01.05.2025, dispassionately and pass a fresh order in accordance with law, without being influenced by the earlier order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rotary International South Asia Office, a charitable organization, is challenging an assessment order dated 30.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) added an excess amount of Rs. 108.65 crores to the petitioner's income. The petitioner argues that the AO failed to consider their reply dated 16.06.2025, rendering the order arbitrary and violative of natural justice. The respondent-Department, represented by Ms. Naincy Jain, admitted that the second reply was filed on 16.06.2025 but stated it could not be considered by the AO. The Department suggested remanding the matter back to the AO for consideration of the reply.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated 30.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice for failing to consider the petitioner's reply dated 16.06.2025? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argues that the AO's failure to consider their reply dated 16.06.2025 before passing the assessment order under Section 148A(3) makes the order arbitrary and a violation of natural justice. No specific authorities or precedents were cited by the assessee. Revenue's Contention: The revenue admits that the reply dated 16.06.2025 was filed but could not be considered by the AO. The revenue concedes that the matter should be remanded back to the AO for consideration of the petitioner's reply in accordance with law. No specific authorities or precedents were cited by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~39 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 14874/2025 CM APPL. 61173/2025 CM APPL. 71604/2025 ROTARY INTERNATIONAL SOUTH ASIA OFFICE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Gaurav Jain, Mr. Shubham Gupta and Ms Varsha, Advs. versus DCIT CIRCLE EXEMP 2(1)-DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, Sr. Std. Counsel with Ms. Naincy Jain, Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Jr. SCs and Mr. Udit Dad, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %

14.01.2026 1. Challenging the assessment order dated 30.06.2025 under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’), learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the excess amount of Rs.108.65 crores has been added in the petitioner’s income, which is a charitable organization. 2. He submitted that while passing the impugned order, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’) has not considered the reply dated 16.06.2025 and therefore, the order is arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice. 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 19/01/2026 at 13:07:56

3.

Ms Naincy Jain, learned counsel for the Department, on the other hand, while admitting that the second reply was filed on 16.06.2025, submitted that the same could not be taken into consideration by the AO. She fairly submitted that the matter be remanded back to the AO, who shall consider the petitioner’s reply dated 16.06.2025 in accordance with law. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the fair stand taken by the respondent-Department and considering that a renewed demand has been raised against a charitable organization without considering its reply dated 16.06.2025, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 30.06.2025 and remand the matter back to the AO. 5. Writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Impugned under Section 148A(3) of the Act of 1961 passed on 30.06.2025 is hereby set aside. 6. The matter is restored back to the AO, who shall consider the petitioner’s reply dated 16.06.2025 so also the earlier reply dated 01.05.2025, dispassionately and pass a fresh order in accordance with law, without being influenced by the earlier order passed by him. DINESH MEHTA, J VINOD KUMAR, J JANUARY 14, 2026/dd 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 19/01/2026 at 13:07:56

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →