SUMAN LATA GUPTA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/4981/2015HC DelhiDLHC01071543201524 April 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court noted that the parties were ad idem that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to pursue appellate remedies. The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to raise all contentions before the appellate authority. The petitioner also submitted that their appellate remedies against the original assessment orders might be time-barred and requested condonation of delay. The Revenue did not object to this. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petitions as withdrawn, granting the petitioner liberty to avail remedies against the assessment orders. The Court directed that if appeals are filed within four weeks from the date of the order, the appellate authority should consider them without being influenced by the delay or the observations made by the CIT in the impugned order dated March 28, 2014. All rights and contentions of the parties were reserved.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Suman Lata Gupta and Aseem Kumar Gupta, filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court challenging orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These CIT orders rejected revision petitions filed by the petitioners against assessment orders. The assessment orders were passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05 to 2009-10, and under Section 143(3) for AY 2010-11. The petitioners contended that the assessment orders were framed without adequate opportunity to be heard, as they were not informed of the issues that were decided against them. The CIT had disposed of the revision petitions by a common order dated March 28, 2014.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment orders for AYs 2004-05 to 2010-11 were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically by not affording the petitioner adequate opportunity to be heard on the issues that formed the basis of the assessment. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that while an opportunity to be heard was granted, they were not informed about the specific issues that were being considered against them, thereby preventing them from adequately addressing those points. This lack of specific information prejudiced their ability to present their case effectively. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the Revenue on this issue. However, the Revenue's proxy counsel was present during the proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 264,Section 143(3),Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (8 matters)

W.P.(C) 4981/2015
W.P.(C) 5051/2015
W.P.(C) 5052/2015
W.P.(C) 5135/2015
W.P.(C) 5136/2015
W.P.(C) 7228/2015
W.P.(C) 7229/2015
W.P.(C) 7230/2015

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

$~110 to 117 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4981/2015 SUMAN LATA GUPTA .....Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 5051/2015 SUMAN LATA GUPTA .....Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 5052/2015 ASEEM KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 5135/2015 SUMAN LATA GUPTA .....Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 5136/2015 SUMAN LATA GUPTA .....Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 7228/2015 SUMAN LATA GUPTA .....Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 7229/2015 SUMAN LATA GUPTA .....Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent AND + W.P.(C) 7230/2015 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

SUMAN LATA 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.110 to 117. Mr Vikramaditya Singh, proxy counsel for Mr Debesh Panda, Ms Zehra Khan and Ms Yashika Gupta, Advocates for respondent in Item Nos.110 to 117. 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 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

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 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 264

All 338 judgments and leading authorities on Section 264 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →