VINTAGE WINES,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 4(1), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2074/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 October 2026AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(A) had indeed violated the principles of natural justice. It found that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to present its case, and a personal hearing, which was specifically requested, was denied. The Tribunal reasoned that adherence to natural justice is a fundamental requirement for any quasi-judicial authority. By failing to provide a fair hearing, the CIT(A) committed a significant procedural error. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The issue regarding the merits of the assessment was not decided by the Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Vintage Wines, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order dated 30th December, 2025, passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. The assessment for the assessment year 2022-23 was framed by the Assessing Officer, Ward-4(1), Gurgaon, under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 26th March, 2024. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not providing a proper opportunity to present its case and by denying a personal hearing despite specific requests. The assessee raised 13 grounds of appeal, primarily concerning these procedural irregularities. The assessment order dealt with unsecured loans totaling Rs. 37,55,000 from various lenders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not granting the assessee a proper opportunity to present its case and by denying a personal hearing, contrary to the assessee's specific requests, thereby vitiating the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice. It contended that no adequate opportunity was provided to present its case, and crucially, no personal hearing was granted even though it was specifically requested. This procedural lapse, according to the assessee, renders the impugned order invalid. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue on this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH-B: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta
Hearing: 19.10.2026Pronounced: 19.10.2026

Per Mahavir Singh, Vice President:

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in appeal No.NFAC/2021-21/10360397 dated 30th December, 2025. Assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer, Ward-4(1), Gurgaon for the assessment year 2022-23 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide order dated 26th March, 2024. 2. At the outset, learned Counsel for the assessee stated that there is a violation of principles of natural justice by the learned CIT(A) as no proper opportunity of presenting assessee's case was allowed to the assessee nor any personal hearing was granted despite specific requests. The assessee has raised 13 grounds, which are mainly on granting of opportunity and violation of principles of natural justice.

S.No. | Name of lender | PAN/Aadhaar | Amount (Rs.) 1. | Akshay Tanwar | PAN BNCPT 1822M | 3,00,000 2. | Asha Kumari | Aadhaar 6191 7971 1105 | 10,00,000 3. | Dhan Patti | Aadhaar 2105 6336 5358 | 13,00,000 4. | Kailash Chand Dagar | PAN KTYPD5446L | 3,05,000 5. | Mahesh Kumar | PAN DOUPK6964J | 6,50,000 6. | Vikas Kumar | PAN APSPK4681A | 2,00,000 Total | 37,55,000

SHASHI KANT PANDEY

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →