MAHEK MADHYANI, DURG,DURG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHILAI, BHILAI

ITA 618/RPR/2026Status: HeardITAT Raipur16 October 2026AY 2018-1916 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 172 days in filing the appeal, acknowledging that the non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not attributable to any deliberate or malafide conduct of the assessee, but rather due to notices being sent to an incorrect email address. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) had passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance. Following the principles of natural justice and consistent with its own prior decisions, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter back to its file for denovo adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with hearing notices and represent the matter on merits, and the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass a speaking order within three months. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mahek Madhyani, filed an appeal before the ITAT, Raipur Bench, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal was time-barred by 172 days. The assessee explained the delay by stating that notices from the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC were sent to an incorrect email address, not the one provided in Form 35. The Revenue conceded that notices were not sent to the correct email address. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) had passed an ex-parte order as the assessee did not appear or file submissions, despite multiple notices issued under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) order noted that the assessee had not furnished any submissions or supporting evidence during appellate proceedings, leading to the assessment of taxable LTCG at Rs. 2,54,14,506/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 172 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee? 2. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, due to non-receipt of notices by the assessee on the correct email address, warrants a remand for denovo adjudication? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay and non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) were not due to any deliberate or malafide conduct but were beyond their control, as notices were sent to an incorrect email address. They relied on various judicial pronouncements for condonation of delay and for the principle of natural justice. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue conceded that notices were not sent to the correct email address. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that in cases of ex-parte orders, the matter should be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for denovo adjudication in the interest of natural justice, citing ITAT decisions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

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 Yash Jain, CA
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.10.2026Pronounced: 16.10.2026

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 24.12.2025 for the assessment year 2018-19 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

At the very outset, it is noted that the appeal is time barred by 172 days. Explaining the reasons for such delay and praying for condonation, the assessee had filed an “affidavit”, dated 03.09.2026 as well as condonation application. Relevant

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →