SHARDA DEVI AGRAWAL, RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. ITO WARD-1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH

ITA 496/RPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 September 2026AY 2015-1611 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, following previous precedents, set aside the CIT(Appeals) order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was time-barred by 118 days. The CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee. The ITAT condoned the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be remanded to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication when the initial appeal was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250(4),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, “DB” RAIPUR

Before: SHRI R.K PANDA & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA &, Ms. Vidya Verma, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 11.08.2026Pronounced: 21.09.2026

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 19.02.2025 for the assessment year 2015-16 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

At the very outset, it is noted that the appeal is time barred by 118 days. Explaining the reasons for such delay and praying for condonation, the assessee h

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →