FORESIGHT VANTAJE PRIVATE LIMITED FORMERLY VICTORY INFRAEDGE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 25 (1), NEW DELHI

ITA 4465/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 October 2026AY 2022-236 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) was unsustainable because it was passed ex-parte without affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that while the CIT(A) claimed to have given several opportunities, there was no evidence that the notices were served on the assessee. Section 250(2)(a) of the Act mandates the right to be heard, which is not a mere formality but a statutory requirement. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee and considering its submissions. The assessee was directed to furnish necessary submissions and material within 60 days. The finding in ITA No. 4464/Del/2026 was to apply mutatis mutandis to ITA No. 4465/Del/2026. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Foresight Vantaje Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Victory Infraedge Pvt. Ltd.), filed appeals for Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2022-23. The appeals challenge orders dated 26.02.2026 passed by the CIT(A)-29, New Delhi, which dismissed the assessee's appeals ex-parte. The dismissal was due to the assessee's failure to comply with notices despite multiple opportunities. The original assessment orders were dated 22.03.2024 and 18.03.2025. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions of ₹7,14,97,570/- under Section 68 and ₹21,44,927/- under Section 69C based on information gathered during a search on the SMC group, alleging receipt of accommodation entries in the form of loans from non-genuine entities.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's order without affording the appellant a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, as per Section 250(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹7,14,97,570/- made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act, treating it as unexplained cash credit? 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹21,44,927/- made by the AO under Section 69C of the Act, treating it as unaccounted commission expenses? Assessee's contentions (as per grounds of appeal): The CIT(A)'s order is bad in law and unsustainable as it was passed without adjudicating on merits and without reasoned findings. The CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not providing an adequate opportunity of being heard and by not allowing cross-examination of third parties whose information was relied upon. The additions were based on surmises and conjectures without cogent material. The assessee maintained audited books of account, and no adverse inference was drawn by the AO regarding them. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, through the CIT-DR, supported the orders of the lower authorities but left it to the Tribunal's discretion to consider restoring the matter to the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69C,Section 250(2)(a),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Hearing: 01.10.2026Pronounced: 05.10.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 4464/Del/2026
ITA No. 4465/Del/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member:

These appeals of the assessee are directed against the orders, both dated 26.02.2026of ld. CIT(A)-29, New Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein appeal has been dismissed ex- parte on the ground that despite several opportunities, the appellant has failed to comply with the notices issued from time to time, against assessment orders dated 22.03.2024 and 18.03.2025, respectively.

2.

By this common order, we propose to decide the ITA Nos. 4464 & 4465/Del/2026 as the parties are same and factual matrix is also same and in order to avoid multiplici

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →