RAJIV GANDHI FOUNDATION vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

PDF · subscribers

W.P.(C)/19497/2025HC DelhiDLHC01104736202521 January 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and pursue all grounds before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court permitted the petitioner to file a consolidated reply by February 28, 2026. Recognizing the impending limitation expiry on March 31, 2026, and to balance equity, the Court exercised its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to extend the limitation for the Principal Commissioner to pass an order up to April 30, 2026. The petitioner was barred from raising objections regarding this extended limitation. The Court clarified that no findings or observations on the merits of the case were made, and all objections raised by the petitioner would be considered by the Principal Commissioner in accordance with the law. The Principal Commissioner was also directed to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing. The writ petition and pending application were dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an action by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner's counsel, after arguing for some time, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition and pursue all grounds and pleas before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner requested time to file a consolidated reply by February 28, 2026. The respondents' counsel indicated that the limitation for the Principal Commissioner to complete proceedings would expire on March 31, 2026. To balance equity, the High Court extended the limitation for the Principal Commissioner to pass an order until April 30, 2026. The petitioner was also granted an opportunity for a personal hearing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner should be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition and pursue its grounds before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax? (Question of procedure) 2. Whether the limitation period for the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to pass an order should be extended? (Question of procedure and equity) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner, through its learned Senior Counsel, submitted that instead of pursuing the writ petition, it wished to take all grounds and pleas before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner also requested time to file a consolidated reply and for an opportunity of personal hearing. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through its learned Special Counsel, informed the Court that the Principal Commissioner would have limited time to complete proceedings due to the impending expiry of the limitation period on March 31, 2026.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Article 226

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

RAJIV GANDHI FOUNDATION

.....Petitioner Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocate.

versus

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Spl. Counsel with Mr. Indruj Rai, SSC and Mr. Sanjeev Menon, JSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

21.01.2026 1. After arguing for some time, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that she has received instructions from the client that instead of pursuing present writ petition, the petitioner be allowed to take all grounds and pleas, which have been taken in the present writ petition along with the reply on merits, before the Authority i.e. Respondent No. 1-Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. 2. She however submitted that since the CEO of the Company is in some difficulty, some time be allowed for doing the same. 3. Considering the request made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, we hereby allow the petitioner to file consolidated reply before Respondent No. 1-Principal Commissioner of Income Tax by 28.02.2026. 4. We are informed by Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Special Counsel for 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 23/01/2026 at 12:27:28

the respondents that respondent No.1 will be left with hardly any time to complete the proceeding as the limitation would expire on 31.03.2026. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to balance the equity, we hereby exercise our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and extend the limitation for passing the order by Respondent No. 1 upto 30.04.2026. 6. Since the order has been passed with the consent of the parties, the petitioner shall not be allowed to raise any objection about the limitation, in case the Respondent No. 1 passes the order by 30.04.2026. 7. Needless to clarify that we have not recorded any finding or made observations on merit of the case and all the objections which the petitioner proposes to raise, including those which have been taken in the instant writ petition shall be allowed to be taken, which shall be considered by Respondent No. 1 in accordance with law, without being influenced by the factum of withdrawal of the present writ petition. 8. At the request of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, we also direct Respondent No. 1 to provide opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner or its representative. 9. Accordingly, present petition, with pending application is dismissed as withdrawn.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

VINOD KUMAR, J. JANUARY 21, 2026/MR 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 23/01/2026 at 12:27:28

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →