AVINASH DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 598/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 October 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) order was perverse as it failed to consider the assessee's submissions dated 22.04.2025, which clearly stated that the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was opted for penalty proceedings only and not for the quantum appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that a quasi-judicial authority must consider all submissions and evidence on record before arriving at a conclusion. Summarily dismissing an appeal without adjudicating on merits constitutes injustice to the taxpayer. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back to his file for de novo adjudication of all grounds of appeal on merits, in accordance with the law and the decision in CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF). The Ld. CIT(Appeals) was directed to pass a speaking order as per Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Avinash Developers Private Limited, filed an appeal before the ITAT Raipur for Assessment Year 2020-21. The appeal was against an order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), Raipur-3 on 15.05.2026. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) had noted that the assessee opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed an application in Form-1, requesting to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) treated the appeal as infructuous and dismissed it as withdrawn for statistical purposes, citing Section 91 of the Finance Act, 2024. However, the assessee submitted on 22.04.2025 that they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme only for penalty proceedings, not for the quantum appeal, and that any indication of withdrawal was inadvertent. This submission was not considered by the Ld. CIT(Appeals).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the assessee's quantum appeal as withdrawn for statistical purposes without considering the assessee's subsequent submission that the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was opted for penalty proceedings only, thereby rendering the order perverse? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and quasi-judicial adjudication). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) failed to consider their submission dated 22.04.2025, which clarified that the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was only for penalty proceedings and not the quantum appeal. They contended that any indication of withdrawal was inadvertent and unintentional, and the quantum appeal should be adjudicated on merits. They relied on the decision in CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom). Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 91,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 PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CA
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.10.2026Pronounced: 06.10.2026

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals), Raipur-3 dated 15.05.2026 for the assessment year 2020-21 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

In this case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) had passed order on 15.05.2026 observing as follows:

“2. It is noted that the appellant opted for the

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 91

All 252 judgments and leading authorities on Section 91 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →