VISHAL CHAIN & JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,. vs. DCIT CIRCLE 25(1), DELHI, .
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits after considering the available material, rather than dismissing it ex parte. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee company, engaged in the jewellery business, filed its return for AY 2010-11. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment and made additions on account of share application/premium and commission. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte for want of prosecution.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without adjudicating on merits. Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: MS MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI MANISH AGARWALShri Rajiv Saxena, Adv, Shri Dishant Sethi, Adv & by: Shri Shyam Sundar, Adv Shri Rajesh Kumar by:
आदेश / ORDER PERMADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the Ld.
ITA 1904/DEL/2026 ITA 1904/DEL/2026 VISHAL CHAIN &JEWELLERY VISHAL CHAIN &JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED PRIVATE LIMITED
CIT(A)] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter CIT(A)] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter CIT(A)] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated
30.12.2017 passed by the ACIT, Circle 26(2), Delhi (hereinafter 30.12.2017 passed by the ACIT, Circle 26(2), Delhi (hereinafter 30.12.2017 passed by the ACIT, Circle 26(2), Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) under Section 143(3) r.ws 147 of the Act for referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) under Section 143(3) r.ws 147 of the Act for referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) under Section 143(3) r.ws 147 of the Act for
Assessment Year 2010 Assessment Year 2010-11.
The assessee company engaged in the business of jewellery, gold, The assessee company engaged in the business of jewellery, gold, The assessee company engaged in the business of jewellery, gold,
stud, bullion etc. filed its return of income on 22 d its return of income on 22-09-2010 declaring 2010 declaring
total income of Rs. 32,60,530/ total income of Rs. 32,60,530/- for A.Y. 2010-11.Notice under Section Notice under Section
148 of the Act was issued on 27.03.2017 after recording the reasons 148 of the Act was issued on 27.03.2017 after recording the reasons 148 of the Act was issued on 27.03.2017 after recording the reasons
for reopening and after getting approval of PCIT for reopening and after getting approval of PCIT-9, New Delhi in 9, New Delhi in
response thereto the assessee filed letter dated 03.04.2017 stating that the assessee filed letter dated 03.04.2017 stating that the assessee filed letter dated 03.04.2017 stating that
the ITR already filed be treated as return the ITR already filed be treated as return filed in response to notice response to notice
under Section 148 of the Act of the Act. The AO completed the reassessment at . The AO completed the reassessment at
Rs. 1,35,62,530/- by adding Rs. 1,01,00,000/ by adding Rs. 1,01,00,000/- on account of share count of share
application/ premium and Rs. 2,02,000/ application/ premium and Rs. 2,02,000/- on account of commission to on account of commission to
the income returned at Rs. 32,60,530/ the income returned at Rs. 32,60,530/-. In appeal the Learned . In appeal the Learned
CIT(Appeals) affirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is CIT(Appeals) affirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is CIT(Appeals) affirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is
in appeal before this Tribunal. in appeal before this Tribunal.
Heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of the respective earned Authorized Representatives of the respective earned Authorized Representatives of the respective
parties and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel parties and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel parties and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel
for the assessee brought to our notice that the Learned First Appellate for the assessee brought to our notice that the Learned First Appellate for the assessee brought to our notice that the Learned First Appellate
ITA 1904/DEL/2026 ITA 1904/DEL/2026 VISHAL CHAIN &JEWELLERY VISHAL CHAIN &JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED PRIVATE LIMITED
Authority has dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex parte, Authority has dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex parte, in limine, for in limine, for
want of prosecution and without going into the merits of the case. The want of prosecution and without going into the merits of the case. The want of prosecution and without going into the merits of the case. The
order passed by the First Appellate Authority is not in consonance with order passed by the First Appellate Authority is not in consonance with order passed by the First Appellate Authority is not in consonance with
the provisions of Section 250. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have the provisions of Section 250. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have the provisions of Section 250. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have
adjudicated the appeal on merit a adjudicated the appeal on merit after going into the material available fter going into the material available
on record. Thus, we have no option but to set aside the order of the on record. Thus, we have no option but to set aside the order of the on record. Thus, we have no option but to set aside the order of the
First Appellate Authority and remit the matter back to the file of the First Appellate Authority and remit the matter back to the file of First Appellate Authority and remit the matter back to the file of
First Appellate Authority for decision afresh by passing a speaking First Appellate Authority for decision afresh by passing a speaking First Appellate Authority for decision afresh by passing a speaking
order by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the
assessee and upon considering his evidence on record or any other upon considering his evidence on record or any other upon considering his evidence on record or any other
evidence which the Assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing the Assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing the Assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing
of the Appeal. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly.
The appeal of the assess The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on Order pronounced in the open court on 10.08.2026
Sd/- Sd/- MANISH AGARWAL) MADHUMITA ROY) (MANISH AGARWAL (MADHUMITA ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 10th August, , 2026. R.Naheed, Sr. PS
ITA 1904/DEL/2026 ITA 1904/DEL/2026 VISHAL CHAIN &JEWELLERY VISHAL CHAIN &JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED PRIVATE LIMITED
Copy to: VISHAL CHAIN &JEWELLERY VISHAL CHAIN &JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED, PRIVATE LIMITED, C/O IPSO LEGAL, H C/O IPSO LEGAL, H-35, 1ST FLOOR, 1 JANGPURA EXTENSION JANGPURA EXTENSION, NEW DELHI-110014, 110014, DELHI
DCIT CIRCLE 25(1), DELHI, DCIT CIRCLE 25(1), DELHI, 2 ITO C. R. BUILDING ITO C. R. BUILDING, NEW DELHI-110002, DELHI 110002, DELHI
3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI DELHIBENCH 5 GUARD FILE
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026