$~104 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 124/2026 & CM APPL. 9589/2026 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 10 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, SSC, Ms. Naincy Jain and Ms. Madhavi Shukla, JSCs versus BAL KISHAN ARORA .....Respondent Through: Mr. A.K.Babbar, Mr. V.K.Sabharwal and Mr. Bharat Tierpathi, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R

% 11.02.2026 CM APPL. 9588/2026 (Delay in refiling)

1. For the reasons stated and considering the submissions made by Ms. Naincy Jain, learned Junior Standing Counsel that the delay of 154 days in refiling the application was due to certain issues in their office and attributable to the office clerk, the delay of 154 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 9587/2026 (Delay in filing)

3. Ms. Naincy Jain, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the appellant submitted that because of the administrative reasons and getting the instructions belatedly from the Department, the delay of 15 days has occurred in filing the appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application vehemently by contending that the delay is of more days and the office has wrongly calculated the delay and in the light of judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court and various High Courts, the delay should not be condoned. He has also argued that the reasons given in both the applications (applications seeking condonation of delay of 15 days in filing the appeal so also seeking condonation of delay of 154 days in refilling the appeal) are identical.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having taken note of the contents of the application, we find that though the reasons mentioned are similar in nature but we feel that in the interest of justice, the small delay of 15 days deserves to be condoned because as stated by Ms. Jain, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Department that the delay of 15 days in filing had occurred due to communication gap between the Income Tax Department and her office and also because of the lapse on the part of her office clerk.

6. No party should suffer because of the fault or lapse on the part of the counsel.

7. The delay is thus, condoned.

8. The application stands allowed.

ITA 124/2026

9. Ms. Naincy Jain, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that though the case apparently appears to be covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-12 v Smt. Krishna Devi reported in (2021) 126 Taxmann.com 80 (Delhi), which judgment has been relied on by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) so also by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and even the name of company whose shares were under consideration is the same, she submitted that against the judgment in case of Smt. Krishna Devi (Supra) a SLP No. 4068/2022 was filed, wherein notice had been issued by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and the matter is pending.

We are also inclined to issue notice.

10. Ms. Jain further submits that apart from the pendency of the issue before Hon’ble the Supreme Court, there are a few more legal arguments, which she purposes to make.

11. Issue notice. Mr. A.K.Babbar, learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice and prays for three days’ time to file his Power; he may do so.

12. List this case for admission on 05.08.2026.

DINESH MEHTA, J VINOD KUMAR, J FEBRUARY 11, 2026/cd