MANOJ AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 731/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 October 2026AY 2015-1611 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in cases where an ex-parte order is passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC due to the assessee's non-compliance, and the assessee seeks to raise legal issues, the matter should be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for adjudication on merits. The Tribunal reasoned that it is not open for the ITAT to address any issue in the absence of a substantive order as per Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. This approach balances the scales of justice and upholds the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal cited its own decisions in Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy./ACIT and Collector Mining, Kondagaon Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), as well as Amit Singh Thakur Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Bilaspur. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter for denovo adjudication, granting one final opportunity to the assessee to comply and represent the matter on merits. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was directed to pass a speaking order within three months.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Manoj Agrawal, proprietor of Manoj Traders, filed an appeal before the ITAT, Raipur Bench against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2015-16. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance with hearing notices. The assessee had requested adjournments multiple times, and in some instances, there was no response to the notices. The appeal before the ITAT was filed after the ex-parte order was passed by the first appellate authority. The revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur, was the respondent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal can decide a legal issue on merits when the first appellate authority has passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance, or whether the matter should be remanded back to the first appellate authority for adjudication on merits? Assessee's contentions: The assessee's representative argued that the matter should be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for denovo adjudication, providing a final opportunity to the assessee to explain the matter on merits, citing the principles of natural justice and settled ITAT precedents. The assessee relied on the decisions in Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy./ACIT and Collector Mining, Kondagaon Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS). Revenue's contentions: The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that in cases of an ex-parte order, the matter should be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for denovo adjudication as per law, in line with settled principles and the ITAT's decision in Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy./ACIT.

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)/NFAC, Delhi dated 17.07.2026 for the assessment year 2015-16 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

At the very outset, it is noted that as evident from Para 4 of the impugned order, the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC vide an ex-parte order had dismisse

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 →