Income Tax Officer Ward 36(1) Delhi & Ors. vs Mangla Gupta

Court/Forum: SC

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Order Date: 2026-01-27

Outcome: Assessee

Core Ratio

The Supreme Court will not interfere with a High Court order unless there are substantial grounds.

Outcome

The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Income Tax Officer, finding no good ground to interfere with the High Court's order.

Favourability

Assessee

Core Issue

The central legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court's decision in the absence of substantial grounds.

Facts of the Case

The Income Tax Officer filed a Special Leave Petition against the High Court's order in WP(C) No. 1543/2023, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Arguments by Assessee

The respondent likely argued that the High Court's order was correct and should not be interfered with.

Arguments by Revenue

The petitioner sought condonation of delay and argued for the Supreme Court's interference with the High Court's order.

Key Sections & Provisions

No specific sections were mentioned in the judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found no substantial grounds to interfere with the High Court's decision, thus dismissing the Special Leave Petition.

Court Reasoning & Analysis

• The delay in filing the SLP was condoned.
• The Supreme Court found no substantial grounds to interfere with the High Court's order.
• The materials on record did not justify interference.
• The SLP was dismissed accordingly.

Key Observations

• Delay condoned.
• No good ground to interfere with the High Court's order.

Related Issues

• Condonation of delay in filing appeals
• Scope of interference by Supreme Court in High Court orders

Important Passages

• Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and having gone through the materials on record, we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court.

Not Decided / Remanded

No specific issues were left open or remanded.

Practical Takeaway

Practitioners should note that the Supreme Court requires substantial grounds to interfere with High Court orders.

Full Judgment Text

ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No.47177/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-01-2024 in WP(C) No. 1543/2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi] INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 36(1) DELHI & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

MANGLA GUPTA Respondent(s) (IA No. 15071/2026 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SLP AND IA No. 15072/2026 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING SLP)

Date : 27-01-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N Venkataraman, A.S.G. Ms. Madhulika Upadhyay, AOR Mr. V Chandrashekhara Bharathi, Adv. Mrs. Neelakshi Bhaduria, Adv. Mr. Madhav Singhal, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Ranjan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1.Delay condoned. 2.Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and having gone through the materials on record, we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. 3.The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 4.Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA)

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

Contrary Judgments

• Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 vs Gruh Finance Ltd. (SC, 2018) — The Supreme Court has the discretion to condone delays in filing petitions based on the merits of the case.
• A2455 Madurai Electricity System PSCS vs The Income Tax Officer (ITAT) — The Tribunal remanded the case to allow the assessee another opportunity to substantiate its claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).