SHREE VARINDER GHAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD EXEMPT 2(1) DELHI & ANR.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court noted two primary reasons: (a) the petitioner had furnished an undertaking to the Department to pay the remaining demand within eight weeks, a fact not disclosed in the petition, and (b) the petitioner had already availed of its appellate remedy, which was pending before the CIT(A). The Court found it inappropriate to entertain the writ petition under these circumstances. However, the Court permitted the petitioner to approach the appellate authority for an expeditious disposal of its appeal, stating that any such application would be considered sympathetically. The petition was disposed of in these terms.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Shree Varinder Ghai Educational Society, incurred a capital expenditure of ₹3,76,59,186/- for setting up an educational institution during FY 2017-18. This expenditure was disclosed in its return for AY 2018-19. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of ₹3,76,59,186/- under Section 69C as unexplained investment, leading to a demand of ₹3,98,44,390/-. The petitioner appealed this to the CIT(A) and filed an application for stay, which was partly granted upon depositing 20% of the demand (₹79,68,878/-). The petitioner made partial deposits totaling ₹6,11,880/-. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a rectification application under Section 154, which was rejected. The petitioner then filed a writ petition challenging recovery actions and seeking directions for early disposal of its appeal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the present writ petition is maintainable given the petitioner's suppression of material facts, specifically an undertaking to pay the balance demand within eight weeks and the pendency of its appeal before the CIT(A)? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contentions: - The petitioner sought to quash recovery actions and expedite its pending appeal. Revenue's contentions: - The petitioner suppressed material facts by not disclosing an undertaking to pay the balance demand within eight weeks. - The petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~71 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3266/2025 and CM Nos.15405/2025, 15406/2025, 15407/2025 SHREE VARINDER GHAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY .....Petitioner Through: Mr Anand Chaudhuri and Mr Deepanshu Mehta, Advocates. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD EXEMPT 2(1) DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Apoorv Agarwal and Mr Parth Samwal, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 17.03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: “(i) Allow the present Writ Petition and pass a Writ of Certiorari, Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order quashing/setting aside the impugned notice issued u/s. 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 04.03.2025, the impugned rectification order dated 31.03.2024 purportedly passed u/s. 154 of the Act and any adverse/coercive action(s) by the Respondent in pursuance thereof or consequence thereto qua impugned demand notice dated 23.03.2021 issued u/s. 154 of the said Act in consequence of impugned assessment order dated 23.03.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act for subject Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19; 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 01/07/2025 at 23:15:06
(ii) Issue direction(s), order(s) et al. to Respondent No. 2 for adjudicating the Petitioner’s appeal qua AY 2018- 19 in a fixed time period deemed appropriate by this Hon’ble Court.” 2. The petitioner claims that it is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is also registered under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter the Act). During the financial year, 2017- 18, the petitioner incurred a capital expenditure of ₹3,76,59,186/- for setting up an educational institution in the name of “Central Academy International School” situated at Dwarka. 3. The petitioner claims that the said amount was paid from the donations received by it and the same was duly disclosed in the schedule forming part of the return for the assessment year 2018-19. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued for scrutiny of the said return particularly in respect of expenditure for (i) charitable and religious purpose and (ii) purchase of motor vehicle. 4. The assessment proceedings culminated in an assessment order dated 23.03.2021 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹3,76,59,186/- under Section 69C of the Act as unexplained investment and raised a demand for a sum of ₹3,98,44,390/-. 5. The petitioner has appealed the said decision before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which is pending. In the meantime, the petitioner also filed an application for stay of the impugned demand. The said application was partly accepted and the demand was stayed subject to the petitioner depositing 20% of the impugned demand, that is, a sum of ₹79,68,878/-. 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 01/07/2025 at 23:15:06
The petitioner did not take any further steps in respect of the said order dated 23.11.2021 at the material time. On 27.12.2021, the petitioner partially complied with the said order and deposited a sum of ₹5 lacs. This was followed by further deposit of ₹41,850/- made on 08.07.2022 and a deposit of a further sum of ₹60,030/- on 27.02.2023. 7. On 18.08.2023, the petitioner filed an application before the Director General (Exemption) requesting issue of directions for early hearing of its appeal. 8. Thereafter, on 13.09.2023, that is, more than two and a half years after the assessment order had been passed, the petitioner filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Act in effect seeking to challenge the addition made under Section 69C of the Act. 9. The petitioner’s application for rectification was rejected by an order dated 31.03.2024. 10. The petitioner is, essentially, aggrieved by the Revenue now taking steps for recovery of the demand that has been outstanding for the past three years. 11. Mr Maratha, learned counsel appears for the Revenue on advance notice submitted that the petitioner has failed to mention that it had submitted an undertaking to the concerned authorities and the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts. 12. He states that in response to the recovery notice dated 10.09.2024, the petitioner had filed a letter showing its inability to deposit tax. However, it 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 01/07/2025 at 23:15:06
also stated as under: “We assure on oath that within a period of eight weeks from today, we will get our appeal listed or we will pay the balance demand as committed by us.” 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 14. As noted above, the petitioner has already availed of its remedy of filing an appeal against the assessment order dated 23.03.2021. The petitioner’s application seeking rectification of the said assessment order is an additional proceeding instituted on the same subject. 15. Given that (a) the petitioner had furnished an undertaking to the Department to pay the remaining demand within a period of eight weeks and has not mentioned this in the petition; and (b) that the petitioner has availed of the appellate remedy, which is pending, we do not consider it apposite to entertain the present petition. 16. However, it would be open for the petitioner to approach the appellate authority for an expeditious disposal of its appeal. Needless to state that if an application is so made, the same would be considered sympathetically. 17. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J MARCH 17, 2025 RK Click here to check corrigendum, if any 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 01/07/2025 at 23:15:06
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Shree Construction, Khordha vs. The Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Pramod Kumar Behera vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Santosh Kumar Pradhan (Late Biswabhar Pradhan) vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Mrs. Sharma Glass And Plywoods vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026
- Sri Mohanraj vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026