BATRA MEDICAL SERVICES PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2779/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 July 2026AY 2022-233 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal was disposed of by the CIT(A) without the assessee having had an effective opportunity to present its case concerning a substantial addition. Considering the facts and circumstances and in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee must remain vigilant, cooperate, and make timely representations without seeking unnecessary adjournments. If the assessee defaults further, the CIT(A) can decide the appeal based on available material. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the addition, leaving all contentions open for both sides.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Batra Medical Services Pvt. Ltd., is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A), Delhi-26, dated 19.01.2026. This order was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment for Assessment Year 2022-23 was framed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-15, Delhi, under section 143(3) on 17.03.2024. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs 2,21,48,000, representing share premium received on a rights issue, under section 56(2)(viib). The assessee challenged this addition before the CIT(A). However, the assessee failed to file written submissions or appear before the CIT(A), leading to the dismissal of the appeal ex parte for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee was afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) in light of the notices of hearing being delivered to an unmonitored e-mail ID, thereby leading to the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the notices of hearing from the CIT(A) were sent to an unmonitored e-mail ID. Consequently, the assessee could not comply with the notices and remained unrepresented. The assessee requested another opportunity to be heard and make submissions before the CIT(A). Revenue's Contention: The Senior Departmental Representative did not seriously object to the matter being restored to the CIT(A)'s file in the interest of justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 56(2)(viib)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jain, CA
For Respondent: Shri Tarun Sharda, Senior DR
Hearing: 09.07.2026Pronounced: 09.07.2026

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP:

1.

This appeal by the Assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-26 [‘the CIT(A)’] in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-26/10081/2021-22 dated 19.01.2026, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The assessment was framed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-15, Delhi (‘the AO’) for the Assessment Year 2022-23 under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 17.03.2024. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that in the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act, the AO made a total addition of Rs 2,21,48,000, being the amount of share premium received by the Assessee upon a rights issue of shares under section 56(2)(viib)of the Act. The Assessee challenged the entire addition in appeal before the CIT(A). However, in the appellate

2 ITA-2779/Del/2026

proceedings, the Assessee neither filed its written submissions nor made any representation, and the CIT(A) accordingly dismissed the appeal ex parte for non-prosecution. Aggrieved, the Assessee is in appeal before us.

. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted before us that the notices of hearing issued by the CIT(A) delivered to an unmonitored e-mail ID and that, for this reason alone, the Assessee could not comply with the notices of hearing and remained unrepresented before the CIT(A). The Learned Counsel, therefore, prayed that the Assessee may be afforded one more opportunity of being heard and of making its submissions before the CIT(A).

. The Learned Senior Departmental Representative (‘DR’) did not seriously object to the matter being restored to the file of the CIT(A) in the interest of justice.

. We have heard both the sides and perused the material placed before us.

. It is evident from the record that the appeal of the Assessee has been disposed of by the CIT(A) without the Assessee having had an effective opportunity of putting forth its case on an addition of a substantial magnitude.

. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits, in accordance with law, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. At the same time, we make it clear that:

a. the Assessee shall remain vigilant about the proceedings, and shall cooperate and make timely representation before the CIT(A) without seeking unnecessary adjournments;

3 ITA-2779/Del/2026

b. in the event of any further default by the Assessee, the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to decide the appeal in accordance with law on the basis of the material available on record; and c. we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the addition, and all contentions of both the sides on merits are left open.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced in the open Court on conclusion of hearing on 10.07.2026. (MANISH AGARWAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT

Date : 14.07.2026 VK.

More judgments on Section 56(2)(viib)

All 746 judgments and leading authorities on Section 56(2)(viib) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →