Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
M.P. Singh Foundation,New Delhi vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 15 May, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI 'G' BENCH,
NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND
SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.1183/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2018-19]
ITA No.1184/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2022-23]
M. P. Singh Foundation Vs. DCIT, Exemption 1(1)
32, CSC, First Floor, C Block Civic Centre,
Yojna Vihar, Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110 092 New Delhi - 110 002
PAN - AAATM 7871 M
(Applicant) (Respondent)
Assessee By : Shri Abhinav Vijh, C.A. &
Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Adv.
Department By : Shri Choudhary N. C. Roy, Sr. D.R.
Date of Hearing : 12.05.2026
Date of Pronouncement : 15.05.2026
ORDER
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
These two appeals by the assessee are preferred against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax - NFAC, Delhi dated 09.12.2025 & 10.12.2025 arising out of the assessment order dated 16.04.2021 passed ITA Nos. 1183 & 1184/DEL/2026 [A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2022-23] MP Singh Foundation vs. DCIT by the Assessing Officer, Circle Exempt 1(1), Delhi (hereinafter referred as "the AO") under section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") pertaining to Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2022- 23, respectively.
2. Since the above captioned appeals were heard together and the facts in issues are identical, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
3. The grounds of appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1183/Del/2026 are as under :
1. That the assessment order dated 16.04.2021 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and the appellate order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre ("NFAC"/"CIT(A)") are bad in law, barred by limitation, without Jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
2. That the statutory notice under Section 143(2) was not issued in accordance with law and the assumption of jurisdiction as well as the assessment order passed are not as per law.
3. That the Assessing Officer has erred in making an addition of Rs.42,00,000/- on account of alleged excess salary paid to the Chairperson of the assessee trust without citing any charging or disallowance provision under the Act and without demonstrating the statutory pre-conditions for invoking Section 13. The CIT(A) too has erred in upholding the same.
4. That AO has erred in law and on facts in characterizing such remuneration as "benefit" to a specified person under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act, without demonstrating that the said remuneration was excessive or unreasonable having regard to the services rendered, as required in law including Section 13(2)(c). The CIT(A) has erred in sustaining same.
5. That AO has erred in drawing an impermissible internal comparison between two trustees of differing seniority, experience, responsibility, qualifications and functional engagement. The CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition on this basis.Page 2 of 9
ITA Nos. 1183 & 1184/DEL/2026 [A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2022-23] MP Singh Foundation vs. DCIT
6. That the authorities below have failed to appreciate that similar remuneration paid in preceding and succeeding years has been accepted under scrutiny assessments framed under Section 143(3) of the Act and in absence of any change in facts, the principle of consistency mandates acceptance of such remuneration in the impugned year as well. The CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the said principle.
7. That the authorities below have erred in invoking Section 13(1)(c) of the Act without invoking or applying Section 13(2)(c), which is the qualifying statutory provision in cases involving remuneration paid to specified persons; such invocation is ultra vires, misconceived and unsustainable in law. The CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same.
8. That the Assessing Officer has erred in making an addition of Rs.1,31,100/-on account of rent relating to civil repairs undertaken once in five years, without displacing the assessee's explanation, without demonstrating any personal benefit to a specified person and without applying the correct test of commercial expediency. The CIT(A) has erred in upholding this addition.
9. That the authorities below have erred in applying Section 115BBE of the Act despite the fact that the impugned additions are neither within the scope of Sections 68 to 69D nor in the nature of deemed unexplained income; such application is illegal, without jurisdiction and bad in law. The CIT(A) has erred in sustaining such application.
11. That the orders of the authorities below are vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice as adequate and effective opportunity of hearing was not granted and the evidences placed on record were not duly considered. The CIT(A) has erred in overlooking these infirmities.
12. That the orders passed by the authorities below are perverse, non-
speaking, contrary to facts and passed without proper appreciation of material on record and are therefore liable to be set aside.
4. The grounds of appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1184/Del/2026 are as under :
1. "That on facts and in law, the impugned appellate order dated 10.12.2025 is bad in law, void and liable to be set aside as the same does not adjudicate the issues arising from the assessment order dated 22.03.2024 for AY 2022-23 and does not constitute a valid disposal of appeal under section 250 of the Act.
2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the detailed written submissions, additional evidences and the application filed under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and rendering the impugned disposal unsustainable in law.Page 3 of 9
ITA Nos. 1183 & 1184/DEL/2026 [A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2022-23] MP Singh Foundation vs. DCIT
3. That without prejudice, the impugned appellate disposal is contrary to the scheme of section 250 of the Act, as no reasons have been recorded, no issues have been adjudicated on merits and the Appellant has been denied the opportunity of hearing and effective representation."
5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a charitable trust registered u/s 12A and engaged in imparting education through schools at Meerut and Dehradun. Assessee filed its original return of income on 16.10.2018 declaring total income amounting to Rs. Nil for the A.Y. 2018-
19. Thereafter, the case was selected for complete scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act making additions of Rs.42,00,000/- for alleged excessive salary to Smt. Shashi Singh and Rs.1,31,000/- for alleged excess rent payment.
6. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who considering the facts and circumstances, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now the further aggrieved assessee is in appeal before us.
7. At the outset, the ld AR of the assessee stated that the issue involved in the case is that an amount of Rs.42,00,000/- paid as salary to Smt. Shashi Singh, Chairperson of the Trust, which has been considered excessive u/s 13(2)(c) of the Act in comparison with salary paid to the founder Trustee Shri Atul Singh. The learned Counsel of the assessee took us to the history of treatment of salary paid to Smt Shashi Singh by the Page 4 of 9 ITA Nos. 1183 & 1184/DEL/2026 [A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2022-23] MP Singh Foundation vs. DCIT Department. It is stated that an amount of Rs.15.85 lakh was paid as salary in A.Y. 2016-17 which was accepted under scrutiny proceedings u/s 143(3) and no addition was made on this count. Similarly for A.Y. 2017- 18, an amount of Rs.49 lakh paid as salary was accepted u/s 143(3) of the Act. It is further pointed out that for A.Ys. 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22, no scrutiny was made u/s 143(3) of the Act. In A.Ys. 2023-24, Rs.93 lakh was paid as salary which after detailed discussions, was accepted u/s 143(3) of the Act and also in A.Y. 2022-23, no addition was made on account of salary. On the other hand , the ld DR relied on the orders of AO/CIT(A).
8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the department itself has accepted the salary paid as being within the limit and not excessive u/s 13(2)(c) of the Act in years prior as well as after years. In A.Y. 2023-24, also the AO has made detailed discussion and no addition has been made on account of salary. We, therefore, are of the considered view that the salary paid to the trustee is reasonable and not excessive u/s 13(2)(c) of the Act and therefore, addition made are deleted on this count.
9. On the second ground of addition made of Rs 1,31,000/- on account of rent paid to Atul Singh, the assessee explained that the same relates Page 5 of 9 ITA Nos. 1183 & 1184/DEL/2026 [A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2022-23] MP Singh Foundation vs. DCIT to repairs undertaken once in 5 years of the said premises. The assessee's explanation that it is commercial expediency to repair the premise undertaken on rent, is acceptable. We do not find any indication of the AO as to how the expenses on repair made, has become the basis of personal benefit to specified person. The said addition is therefore deleted and the grounds of appeal is allowed.
10. With regard to the invocation of section 115BBE, the same is now infructuous.
ITA 1184/Del/2026 AY 2022-23
11. For AY 2022-23, the assessee filed its return of income declaring Nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act vide order dated 22.03.2024, wherein the Assessing Officer made additions aggregating to Rs. 1,29,29,107/-.
12. At the outset, the ld counsel of the Assessee submitted that upon appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee's additional evidences and an application under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 were not adjudicated.
13. Per contra, the ld DR relied on the orders of the CIT(A). Page 6 of 9
ITA Nos. 1183 & 1184/DEL/2026 [A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2022-23] MP Singh Foundation vs. DCIT
14. We have heard the rival submissions. We are of the considered view that in the instant case, the CIT(A) has not considered the detailed written submissions, additional evidences and the application filed under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. In view of the above facts, we are of the opinion that in the interest of natural justice, the issues be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for a adjudication afresh. The CIT(A) is directed to accord reasonable opportunities0 to the assessee to make effective representation of its case and dispose of the issues in accordance with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. On the other hand, the assessee is directed to furnish documents/evidences as required by the CIT(A). The grounds are decided in aforesaid terms.
15. In the result, the appeal in ITA Nos. 1183/Del/2026 is allowed & appeal in ITA 1184/DEL/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 15.05.2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
[SATBEER SINGH GODARA] [NAVEEN CHANDRA]
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 15th May, 2026.
Priti Yadav, Sr.PS*
Copy forwarded to:
Page 7 of 9
ITA Nos. 1183 & 1184/DEL/2026 [A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2022-23] MP Singh Foundation vs. DCIT
1. Assessee
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Page 8 of 9