PRESTIGIOUS ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI V. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRE CIRCLE - 18, NEW DELHI

ITA 1046/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Prestigious Enterprises Private Limited against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi, which arose from assessment orders under sections 144 r.w.s. 147 and 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner due to delays in filing, but the Tribunal found procedural errors in how the appeals were handled, particularly the discussion of merits despite the delays. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case for re-adjudication emphasizes the need for adherence to procedural norms and the right to a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826516 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUSH KALRA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144; 271(1)(c); 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER ITA Nos.1046 & 1050/DEL/2025 [Assessment Year: 2008-09] Prestigious Enterprises Private Limited, Shop No.UGF 17B, Wedding Souk, Plot No.1, Local Shopping Centre, Sharda Niketan, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-18, E-2, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extn. Delhi-110055 PAN-AADCS7613K Assessee Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.01.2026 ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM, These two appeals filed by the assessee are against orders dated 22.06.2023 and 04.07.2023 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 27, New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment orders dated 18.03.2016 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 and dated 16.09.2016 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2008-09. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1046 & 1050/Del/2025 Page 2 of 5 1961. Both the appeals for the purposes of convenience were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The assessee was called absent in this case. 3. Aggrieved by the decision of ld. CIT(A) in dismissing its appeals qua orders u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 and under section 271(1)(c), the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- ITA No.1046/Del/2025 1. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-27, New Delhi, failed to appreciate the fact that the company A.R Developer Pvt. Ltd was not in existence at the time when notice u/s 147/148 of the income tax act 1961 was issued in its name. 2. That the impugned Appeal Order is bad in law, illegal, and in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence. 3. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -27, New Delhi has erred in confirming the action with regard to reopening of Assessment u/s 147/148 and as such, proceeding u/s 147/148 is bad in law. 4. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A)- 27, New Delhi, has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 39,37,70,000/• U/s 68 of the income tax Act 1961, which was received as advance against property. 5. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - 27, New Delhi, has not followed the law of natural justice while confirming the Order U/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Learned Assessing Officer without giving proper show cause notice and providing due opportunity to the appellant. ITA No.1050Del/2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1046 & 1050/Del/2025 Page 3 of 5 1. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-27, New Delhi, failed to appreciate the fact that the company A.R Developer Pvt. Ltd was not in existence at the time when notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the income tax act 1961 was issued. 2. That the impugned Appeal Order is bad in law, illegal, and in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence. 3. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - 27, New Delhi, has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the penalty u/s of Rs.13,38,42,423/-on concealment of income of 39,37,70,000/- U/s 68 of the income tax Act 1961, which was received as advance against for property. 4. That the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (A) - 27, New Delhi, has not followed the law of natural justice while confirming the Order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Learned Assessing Officer without giving proper show cause notice and providing due opportunity to the appellant. 4. At the outset, we have noted that there was a delay of about three years and 2.5 years in filing appeals qua orders u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 and under section 271(1)(c) before the ld. CIT(A). The final paras in both the appellate orders indicate that the ld. CIT(A) has proceeded to dismiss the appeal without condoning the delay in filing of the appeals. We have also noted that the ld. CIT(A) has given his findings on merits in the preceding parts of both the appellate orders. The approach thus adopted by ld. First Appellate Authority is not conformity with the judicial discipline. It is a matter of records that the assessment and the penalty proceedings were also concluded ex-parte on account of non-compliance by the assessee. Once the appeals were to be dismissed on their being filed late, no discussion on merits was maintainable. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1046 & 1050/Del/2025 Page 4 of 5 5. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the twin appeals to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication de novo after giving due opportunities of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall be at liberty to produce all the evidences deemed necessary in support of its defence. The ld. CIT(A) shall be required to conclude the twin proceedings within six months of the passing of this order. Any non-compliance at the end of the assessee may be adversely viewed. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee in ITA No.1046/Del/2025 and ITA No.1050/Del/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 06th January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 12.01.2026 Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi, Printed from counselvise.com "