Rotary International South Asia Office V. DCIT Circle Exemp 2(1)-Delhi

W.P.(C)/14874/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rotary International South Asia Office, a charitable organization, challenging an assessment order that unjustly added Rs.108.65 crores to its income. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer did not consider their reply dated 16.06.2025 when passing the order, claiming it was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice. The respondent, represented by the Department of Income Tax, admitted the oversight and agreed to remand the matter for a fresh assessment. The High Court's decision to set aside the order and remand the case underscores the importance of considering all relevant submissions in tax assessments, especially concerning charitable organizations.

• Counselvise Citation: [] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 830288 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2026
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SHLOK CHANDRA; NAINCY JAIN; MADHAVI SHUKLA; UDIT DAD
• Assessee Lawyers: GAURAV JAIN; SHUBHAM GUPTA; VARSHA
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Charitable organization; Natural Justice; Remand
• Section: 148A(3)

Judgement Text

"$~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 Printed from counselvise.com 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 Printed from counselvise.com "