VIBHA GUPTA,VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 30(5), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merits and had dismissed the appeal due to procedural issues. The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present her case.
What were the facts?
Following a search action, the AO made an addition to the assessee's income related to share capital. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution without a proper opportunity to be heard.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without granting a sufficient opportunity of being heard, violating principles of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 132,Section 133A,Section 153A,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI
Per Bench:
The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act', for short), pertaining to the Assessment Years (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13.
As the appeals are identical, we hereby pass a consolidated order by taking the ITA No.1536/Del/2026 as the lead year for the sake of convenience.
2 ITAs No.1536, 1537,1886 & 1573/Del/2026 Vibha Gupta
The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:-
“Addition to income INR 31,64,000. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without granting a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the fundamental principles of natural justice. Granting only one hearing opportunity, followed by dismissal does not constitute “sufficient opportunity” as mandated under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.”
The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and pursuant to a search and survey action conducted in the case of the assessee along with other cases of the group entities at the residences and business premises as per the provisions of Section 132/133A of the Act dated 19.08.2011, the assessee’s case was centralised and the Ld. AO issued notice under Section 153A of the Act dated 30.09.2013 which was duly issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee filed her return of income declaring income from house property of Rs.10,746/-, income from bank interest at Rs.2,521/-, interest on refund of Rs.520 and income from dividend at Rs.3,84,713/- in response to the said notice dated 14.10.2013. The Ld. AO, then, issued statutory notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. It was observed that various incriminating material pertaining to accommodation entries in the form of share capital was received by the assessee’s group companies from various bogus accommodation entry providers which had no genuine business transactions for which the Ld. AO had sought for details from the assessee with regard to the same. The Ld. AO, then, passed the assessment order dated 29.03.2014 under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act determining the total
3 ITAs No.1536, 1537,1886 & 1573/Del/2026 Vibha Gupta
income at Rs.31,77,787/- after making an addition towards commission paid by the directors of M/s Aerens Goldsouk International Pvt. Ltd., for purchase of share capital and share premium which amounted to Rs.31.64 crores relevant to the impugned year and the assessee’s 1/5 share being Rs.31,64,000/- which was added by the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee.
Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the First Appellate Authority who, vide an ex parte order dated 01.01.2026, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. The assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the assessee being aggrieved by the addition made by the Ld. AO in the impugned assessment order had preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority who had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for non- compliance. On perusal of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that this is the second round of appeal where the Tribunal had set aside the issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) in his order had stated that as there were two appellate orders of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 28.08.2019 and 23.03.2016, he was unaware of which of the appeal the Coordinate Bench had remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) as it is the contention of the Ld. CIT(A) that the order of the Tribunal was not in his record and, therefore, he was unable to ascertain as to what
4 ITAs No.1536, 1537,1886 & 1573/Del/2026 Vibha Gupta
was the direction given in the set aside order. The Ld. CIT(A) further held that the assessee was non-compliant throughout the appellate proceedings despite several notices. The Ld. CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
From the above facts of the case it is evident that the Ld.CIT(A) has not decided the issue in hand on the merits and has merely stated that the order of the Tribunal was not before him. In view of the above facts of the case, we deem it fit to extend the assessee one more opportunity to present her case before the First Appellate Authority. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the issue de novo on the basis of the submissions of the assessee after duly considering all the relevant documentary evidences filed by the assessee, as per the merits of the case and in accordance with the law. The assessee is directed to strictly comply with the proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) without any undue delay from her side. Hence, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
5 ITAs No.1536, 1537,1886 & 1573/Del/2026 Vibha Gupta
1537, 1886 & 1573/Del/2026 (AYs : 2010-11 to 2012-13)
The decision in ITA No.1536/Del/2026 as above would apply mutatis mutandis to these appeals and these appeals of the assessee are also allowed for statistical purposes.
To sum up, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 10th July, 2026. . Sd/- Sd/- (AMITABH SHUKLA) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated, 10th July, 2026 dk Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. DR, ITAT, Delhi 5. Guard File. BY ORDER, //True COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, DELHI BENCHES
More judgments on Section 132
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026