BHARAT BENEFICATION & POWER PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

ITA 320/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 July 2026AY 2014-1511 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 de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present their case on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance and failure to appear despite multiple opportunities. The assessee had challenged an addition of Rs. 1,31,90,000/-.

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CA
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 09.07.2026Pronounced: 13.07.2026

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:

The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals), Raipur-3, dated 27.02.2026 for the assessment year 2014-15 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

At the very outset, it is noted that as evident from para 3.1 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) vide an ex-parte order had dismissed the appeal of

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 →