SMT. MEENALI SINGHANIA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 730/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 October 2026AY 2022-2311 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that when an ex-parte order is passed by the CIT(Appeals) due to the assessee's non-compliance, and a legal ground is raised before the Tribunal, the Tribunal should not adjudicate the legal ground directly. Doing so would usurp the power of the CIT(Appeals), which is a statutory authority, and would defeat the legislative intent of having a substantive order from the first appellate authority. The Tribunal emphasized that the framework of the Act requires the CIT(Appeals) to pass a speaking order on merits after substantial adjudication. Therefore, in such scenarios, following the principles of natural justice and providing a benefit of doubt to the assessee, the matter must be remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication on merits, with a final opportunity for the assessee to comply. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back to its file for adjudication on merits within three months, directing the assessee to comply with hearing notices.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Smt. Meenali Singhania, filed an appeal before the ITAT, Raipur Bench, challenging an order of the CIT(Appeals), Raipur-3, for Assessment Year 2022-23. The CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance, despite multiple opportunities for hearing. The assessee failed to provide detailed explanations for the grounds of appeal. The Revenue, represented by the Sr. DR, submitted that the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication in the interest of natural justice, citing previous ITAT decisions. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) order was ex-parte and the assessee had not complied with the hearing notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal can decide on merits a legal ground when the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) is ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee, or whether the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication. Assessee's Contention: The assessee's counsel argued that the legal issue was squarely covered by a Supreme Court decision and could be raised at any appellate forum, irrespective of prior submission. The assessee relied on the decision in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that in cases of ex-parte orders due to non-compliance, the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication in the interest of natural justice, citing ITAT decisions in Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy./ACIT and Collector Mining, Kondagaon Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS).

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 Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CA

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Hearing: 15.10.2026Pronounced: 15.10.2026

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM

The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals), Raipur-3 dated 29.07.2026 for the assessment year 2022-23 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

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 assessee due to non-compliance

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 →