ASHA THAKUR, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 657/RPR/2026Status: HeardITAT Raipur10 September 2026AY 2022-2311 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present their case on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(Appeals) due to non-compliance with hearing notices. The assessee did not appear or file submissions despite multiple opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(Appeals) due to non-compliance by the assessee should be set aside and remanded for adjudication on merits, adhering to principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(4),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.09.2026Pronounced: 10.09.2026

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 19.06.2026 for the assessment year 2022-23 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee nor any adjournment petition has been filed. The matter is heard after recording the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and on a careful perusal of the materials available on record.

3.

At t

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →