ASEEM KUMAR GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that after some arguments, both the petitioner and the revenue agreed that it would be apposite for the petitioner to agitate the issues by availing appellate remedies. Consequently, the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to urge all contentions before the appellate authority. The petitioner also requested condonation of delay in filing appeals, as the appellate remedies might now be time-barred. The revenue did not object to this request. The Court, therefore, disposed of the petitions as withdrawn, granting the petitioner four weeks to file appeals against the assessment/reassessment orders for AYs 2004-05 to 2010-11. The appellate authority was directed to consider these appeals uninfluenced by the question of delay and the observations made by the CIT in the impugned order. All rights and contentions of the parties were reserved.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Aseem Kumar Gupta, filed multiple writ petitions before the Delhi High Court challenging orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) which rejected his revision petitions under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These revision petitions were filed against assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A of the Act for Assessment Years (AY) 2004-05 to 2009-10, and an assessment order under Section 143(3) for AY 2010-11. The petitioner contended that the assessment orders were framed without affording him an adequate opportunity to be heard, as certain issues considered in the assessment orders were not brought to his notice at the material time. The CIT's common order dated 28.03.2014 rejected these revision petitions.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessment orders for AYs 2004-05 to 2010-11 were passed without affording the petitioner adequate opportunity of being heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as contended by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that while he was granted an opportunity to be heard, the specific issues that were decided against him in the assessment orders were not communicated to him beforehand, thus preventing him from effectively addressing them. He contended that this lack of prior notice vitiated the assessment proceedings. The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the lack of specific notice on the issues decided against him. However, the parties ultimately agreed that it would be more appropriate for the petitioner to pursue appellate remedies against the original assessment orders.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (6 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
$~104 to 109 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4343/2015 ASEEM KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 4976/2015 ASEEM KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 4977/2015 ASEEM KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 4978/2015 ASEEM KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 4979/2015 ASEEM KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 4980/2015 ASEEM KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent Present: Dr Rakesh Gupta, Mr Somil Agarwal and Mr Dushyant Agrawal, Advocates for petitioner in Item Nos.104 to 109. Mr Vikramaditya Singh, proxy counsel for Mr Debesh Panda, Ms Zehra Khan and Ms Yashika Gupta, Advocates for respondent in Item Nos.104 to 109. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 22:08:15
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 24.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the aforementioned petitions impugning the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax [CIT] rejecting the petitioner’s revision petitions under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. 2. The petitioner had preferred the said revision petitions against assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) of the Act read with Section 153A of the Act in respect of Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2009-10 as well as the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act in respect of Assessment Year [AY] 2010-11. The said revision petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 28.03.2014, which is impugned in the present petitions. 3. It is the petitioner’s case that the assessment orders have been framed without affording the petitioner adequate opportunity of being heard. To be noted, it is not disputed that the petitioner was granted an opportunity to be heard. However, the petitioner contends that a hearing in regard to the issues were held against the petitioner and have found their way in the assessment orders, were not informed to the petitioner at the material time. Thus, the petitioner did not have sufficient opportunity to address the said issues. 4. After some arguments, the learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that it would be apposite for the petitioner to agitate the issues as raised in the present petitions by availing appellate remedies. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw these This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 22:08:15
petitions with liberty to urge all contentions before the appellate authority. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s appellate remedies against the assessment orders that were the subject matter of revision may now be time barred and prays that the orders be passed for condoning the delay in filing the appeals. The learned counsel for the Revenue does not object to the same. 7. In view of the above, we consider it apposite to dispose of the present petitions as withdrawn leaving it open for the petitioner to avail its remedies against the assessment orders, which are subject matter of revision before the CIT. 8. In the event, the petitioner files appeal(s) against the assessment/ reassessment orders for AYs 2004-05 to 2010-2011 within a period of four weeks from today, the appellate authority shall consider the same uninfluenced by the question of delay as well as the observations made by the CIT in the impugned order dated 28.03.2014. 9. We clarify all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. 10. The petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J APRIL 24, 2025 RK Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 22:08:15
More judgments on Section 153A
- V S A Infra Projects Private Limited… vs DCIT., Central Circle-1(2), HyderabadITA 903/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2026AY 2016-17
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Ig3 Infra Limited, KanchipuramITA 2578/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Ig3 Infra Limited, OggiamthoraipakkaITA 2577/CHNY/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Shree Jagannath Associates, Angul vs. The Chief Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, CuttackOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Sampat Raj Jain vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors.Gauhati · 3 Nov 2026
- Sri Hardik Gowda vs. Sri Jayaram PKarnataka · 3 Nov 2026
- Shiv Ram vs. State Of Hp And OrsHimachal Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Ampl Resources PVT. LTD., Through Sri Om Prakash Pareek, Authorised Signatory vs. The State Of JharkhandJharkhand · 3 Nov 2026