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

ITA 598/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 October 2026AY 2020-215 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) had erred by passing an order on 15.05.2026 without considering the assessee's submissions dated 22.04.2025. The Tribunal found the order to be perverse as it summarily dismissed the appeal without considering the submissions filed by the assessee even before the appellate order was passed. A quasi-judicial authority must consider submissions on record before reaching a conclusion. Not adjudicating an appeal on merits and summarily dismissing it amounts to injustice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back to his file for a de novo adjudication of all grounds of appeal on merits, in accordance with law, and to pass a speaking order as per Sections 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) noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and filed an application in Form-1, leading the CIT(Appeals) to treat the appeal as infructuous and dismiss it as withdrawn. However, the assessee submitted 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 of this appeal was inadvertent. The assessee prayed for the appeal to be adjudicated on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in dismissing the quantum appeal as withdrawn without considering the assessee's submission that the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was opted for penalty proceedings only, thereby rendering the order perverse? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 250(4) & (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme only in respect of penalty proceedings, not for the quantum appeal. - Any submission or indication suggesting withdrawal of the quantum appeal was inadvertent and unintentional. - The appeal should be treated as valid, subsisting, and adjudicated on merits. - Relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom). Revenue's Contentions: - Not recorded in the judgment.

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 “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.

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 account Sign 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 →