Suman Lata Gupta v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

$~110 to 117 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 4981/2015SUMAN LATA GUPTA.....PetitionerversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.....RespondentAND+W.P.(C) 5051/2015SUMAN LATA GUPTA.....PetitionerversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.....RespondentAND+W.P.(C) 5052/2015ASEEM KUMAR GUPTA.....PetitionerversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.....RespondentAND+W.P.(C) 5135/2015SUMAN LATA GUPTA.....PetitionerversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.....RespondentAND+W.P.(C) 5136/2015SUMAN LATA GUPTA.....PetitionerversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.....RespondentAND+W.P.(C) 7228/2015SUMAN LATA GUPTA.....PetitionerversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.....RespondentAND+W.P.(C) 7229/2015SUMAN LATA GUPTA.....PetitionerversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.....RespondentAND+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 30/04/2025 at 15:50:49 SUMAN LATA GUPTA .....Petitioner versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent Present:Dr Rakesh Gupta, Mr Somil Agarwal and Mr DushyantAgrawal, 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 forrespondent in Item Nos.110 to 117. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIAO R D E R24.04.2025 % 1.The petitioner has filed the aforementioned petitions impugning theorders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting thepetitioner’s revision petitions under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act,1961 [the Act]. 2.The petitioner had preferred the said revision petitions againstassessment orders passed under Section 143(3) of the Act read with Section153A of the Act in respect of Assessment Years 2004-05 to 2009-10 as wellas the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act in respect ofAssessment Year 2010-11. The said revision petitions were disposedof by a common order dated 28.03.2014, which is impugned in the presentpetitions. 3.It is the petitioner’s case that the assessment orders have been framedwithout affording the petitioner adequate opportunity of being heard. To benoted, it is not disputed that the petitioner was granted an opportunity to beheard. However, the petitioner contends that a hearing in regard to the issueswere held against the petitioner and have found their way in the assessmentorders, 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 30/04/2025 at 15:50:49 petitioner did not have sufficient opportunity to address the said issues. 4.After some arguments, the learned counsel for the parties are ad idemthat it would be apposite for the petitioner to agitate the issues as raised inthe present petitions by availing appellate remedies. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw thesepetitions with liberty to urge all contentions before the appellate authority. 6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner’s appellate remedies against the assessment orders that were thesubject matter of revision may now be time barred and prays that the ordersbe passed for condoning the delay in filing the appeals. The learned counselfor the Revenue does not object to the same. 7.In view of the above, we consider it apposite to dispose of the presentpetitions as withdrawn leaving it open for the petitioner to avail its remediesagainst the assessment orders, which are subject matter of revision beforethe CIT. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw thesepetitions with liberty to urge all contentions before the appellate authority. 6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner’s appellate remedies against the assessment orders that were thesubject matter of revision may now be time barred and prays that the ordersbe passed for condoning the delay in filing the appeals. The learned counselfor the Revenue does not object to the same. 7.In view of the above, we consider it apposite to dispose of the presentpetitions as withdrawn leaving it open for the petitioner to avail its remediesagainst the assessment orders, which are subject matter of revision beforethe 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 fourweeks from today, the appellate authority shall consider the sameuninfluenced by the question of delay as well as the observations made bythe 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.10.The petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, JAPRIL 24, 2025/RKClick 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 30/04/2025 at 15:50:49