MANOJ GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI AND ANOTHER

ITA/243/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01088682202618 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Manoj Gupta, filed an appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 25.03.2026. The ITAT had set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and restored the matters to the file of the Commissioner for fresh adjudication on merits. This restoration was subject to the condition that the assessee deposit a cost of Rs. 2 lakhs in each appeal with the 'Poor Relief Fund, PGI, Chandigarh'. The ITAT also stipulated that in case of default in payment of cost, the earlier orders would stand revived. The assessee's appeal to the High Court was confined to the quantum of cost imposed by the ITAT.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, while acknowledging that the assessee's conduct in not effectively pursuing proceedings before the authorities cannot be ignored, considered the cost imposed by the ITAT to be on the higher side. The Court noted that a substantial part of the assessment proceedings pertained to the period affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. In light of these peculiar facts and circumstances, the High Court deemed it appropriate to restore the matter for fresh adjudication on merits. The Court reduced the cost from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 25,000/- in each appeal. The assessee was directed to deposit this reduced cost in the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh within four weeks from the date of the order. The Court clarified that, except for the reduction in cost, the ITAT's order dated 25.03.2026 would remain unaltered.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the cost of Rs. 2 lakhs imposed by the ITAT in each appeal, for restoration of matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, is exorbitant and disproportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case, thereby requiring interference by the High Court under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the imposition of Rs. 2 lakhs in each appeal is exorbitant and disproportionate to the facts and circumstances of the case, warranting interference by the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue supported the order passed by the ITAT, including the quantum of cost imposed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITA-243-20

IN

Manoj Gupt

Commission

1 The date 2 The date 3 The date 4 Whether pronoun 5 The dela and reas

CORAM:-

Present:

RUPINDER

1.

Act, 1961 (f order dated Tax Appella Tribunal’), p 2. for the asse assessment o of Income T required fre Commission 026 (O&M)

1 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUP Mr. Ayush Sarna, Advocate for th Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocate

***** RJIT CHAHAL, J. The present appeal under Sect for short ‘the Act’) has been pre 25.03.2026 (uploaded on 06.04 ate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench passed in ITA Nos.791/Chd/2025 The re-assessment proceedings essment years 2017-18 and 20 orders which were subsequently Tax (Appeals). The Tribunal, be sh adjudication on merits, set a ner of Income Tax (Appeals) and JAB AND HARYANA RH

ITA-243-2

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 260-A

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →