Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 18/2023
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr Abhishek Maratha, Sr. Standing Counsel.
versus
INDIAN TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Mayank Nagi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
O R D E R %
13.01.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM Appl.1377/2023[Application filed on behalf of appellant seeking condonation of delay of 92 days in filing the appeal] CM Appl.1378/2023[Application filed on behalf of appellant seeking condonation of delay of in 85 in re-filing the appeal] 1. The above-captioned applications have been filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue for condoning the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal. 1.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 92 days in filing the appeal and 85 days in re-filing the appeal. 2. Mr Mayank Nagi, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, does not oppose the prayer made by the appellant/revenue to condone the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal. 3. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. ITA 18/2023
page 1 of 3 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 27/03/2026 at 13:34:46
Applications are disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 18/2023 5. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 6. We are informed that the issue which arises for consideration in the instant appeal also arose between the same parties in AY 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 6.1 We are also informed that a coordinate bench of this court via judgement dated 11.01.2022, rendered inter alia, in ITA 3/2022, titled Commissioner of Income Tax v India Trade Promotion Organisation, has ruled in favour of the respondent/assessee. 7. Broadly, the issue which arose for consideration before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”] was whether rental income which was disclosed by the respondent/assessee in the notes to account appended to its balance sheet, was the respondent’s/assessee’s accrued income. 8. The Assessing Officer (AO), based on the disclosure in the notes to account, concluded that the income had accrued and therefore, was chargeable to tax. 8.1 The facts, as obtaining on record, according to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, “CIT(A)”] and the Tribunal revealed that there was a dispute with regard to the rent obtaining between National Science Centre & Crafts Museum and the respondent/assessee. 9. It is in these circumstances that both CIT(A) and the Tribunal concluded that no income had accrued to the respondent/assessee. 9.1 We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and also respectfully ITA 18/2023
page 2 of 3 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 27/03/2026 at 13:34:46
follow the decision of the coordinate bench of this court in the aforementioned appeal. 10. According to us, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. Therefore, appeal is closed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
JANUARY 13, 2023 /r
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
ITA 18/2023
page 3 of 3 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 27/03/2026 at 13:34:46