RAJ KUMAR,NOIDA vs. ITO, NOIDA
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the appellant, Union of India, failed to establish its locus standi to institute the appeals. Since the appellant could not satisfactorily explain how it was an aggrieved party, the appeals were rejected on this ground alone.
What were the facts?
The appeals arose from assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The original assessments were made in the hands of the Organizing Committee (OC) Common Wealth Games 2010. The Union of India, through the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, filed the instant appeals.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether the appellant had the locus standi to file the appeals, given it was not the original assessee and failed to prove it was an aggrieved party.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
These assessee’s twin appeals i.e.
& 1678/Del/2019, for Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 arise against the CIT(A)-36, New Delhi’s as many orders dated 19.11.2018 and 23.11.2018 in case Nos. 27, 28 & 29/2015-16, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have framed their respective section & 1678/Del/2019 Union of India 143(3) assessments herein in the twin assessment years before us in the hands of an AOP; in the name and style of Organizing Committee (OC) Common Wealth Games 2010, Delhi, which stands upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate orders. And that it is thereafter that the appellant before us i.e. Union of India through Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Department of Sports (CWG Cell) has instituted the instant twin cases against the same without even clarifying as to how it is an “aggrieved” party, both as the successor entity of the original assessee/AOP or otherwise, as the case may be. We accordingly are of the considered view that the appellant’s instant appeals deserves to be rejected for this precise reason alone subject to all just exceptions.
We make it clear before parting that we had duly invited the appellant’s attention to prove it’s locus standi to institute both the instant appeals and no satisfactorily explanation has come from it’s side. Rejected accordingly.
All other pleadings on merits herein stand rendered academic.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
