MANJU DEVI AGRAWAL, KORBA,KORBA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 570/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 July 2026AY 2021-2212 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, following precedent, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals). The matter was remanded back for denovo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee one final opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was time-barred by 39 days. The First Appellate Authority (CIT(Appeals)) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with hearing notices.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(Appeals) due to assessee's non-compliance should be set aside and remanded for fresh 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: 23.07.2026Pronounced: 23.07.2026

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals), Raipur-3, dated 09.03.2026 for the assessment year 2021-22 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

At the very outset, it is noted that the appeal is time barred by 39 days. That as per record, there is no malafide or deliberate conduct established on the part of the assessee for causing such delay. Therefore, respectfully following 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 →