SARVAMANGLA CONSTRTUCTION CO.,KORBA vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 382/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 October 2026AY 2018-1911 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(Appeals) passes an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance, and the assessee subsequently appeals to the Tribunal, the Tribunal should not adjudicate on the merits of the legal grounds. Instead, following the principles of natural justice and the scheme of the Act, the matter should be remanded back to the file of the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication on merits. The Tribunal cited its own previous decisions in "Brajesh Singh Bhadoria" and "Collector Mining, Kondagaon" as precedents. The Tribunal directed the assessee to comply with the hearing notices from the CIT(Appeals) and represent the matter on merits, emphasizing that this would be a final opportunity. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order in terms of Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act within three months. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sarvamangla Construction Company, filed an appeal before the ITAT, Raipur Bench against the order of the CIT(Appeals), Raipur-3 for Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal was dismissed by the CIT(Appeals) ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with multiple hearing notices. The assessee did not appear for the hearing before the ITAT, nor did they file an adjournment petition. The Revenue's Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) argued that the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication, citing previous ITAT decisions where ex-parte orders due to non-compliance were set aside and remanded.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should decide the legal grounds raised by the assessee when the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) was passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded as the assessee was absent. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication. They relied on the ITAT, Raipur Bench decisions in "Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy./ACIT, Central Circle-2, Naya Raipur" and "Collector Mining, Kondagaon Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)", which held that in cases of ex-parte orders by the CIT(Appeals) due to non-compliance, the matter should be restored to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee. The Revenue emphasized that the Tribunal should not usurp the powers of the CIT(Appeals) by deciding legal grounds in the absence of a substantive order on merits.

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 Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr.DR

Hearing: 09.10.2026Pronounced: 12.10.2026

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals), Raipur-3 dated 29.03.2026 for the assessment year 2018-19 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

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

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 →