M/S PRIME DEVELOPERS,RAIPUR. CHHATTISGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR, CHHATISGARH

ITA 743/RPR/2026Status: HeardITAT Raipur16 October 2026AY 2014-1511 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in cases where an ex-parte order is passed by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-compliance, and the assessee raises legal grounds, the Tribunal should not usurp the powers of the CIT(A) by deciding such legal grounds. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) is the first appellate authority and is required to pass a speaking order on merits as per Section 250(4) and (6) of the Income Tax Act. Allowing the Tribunal to decide legal grounds in such circumstances would create an easy route for assessees to bypass the appellate process before the CIT(A), defeating the legislative intent. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee to comply. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and pass an order within three months. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Prime Developers, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2014-15. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance, despite several opportunities for hearing. The assessee had challenged an addition of Rs. 28,45,175/-. The CIT(A)'s order noted that the assessee failed to provide detailed explanations and appeared not interested in pursuing the appeal. The ITAT noted that the Revenue requested a remand for denovo adjudication by the CIT(A)/NFAC, citing previous ITAT decisions where similar ex-parte orders were set aside and remanded.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT should decide the legal issue raised by the assessee in the absence of a substantive order on merits by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-compliance, or whether the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Assessee's contentions: The assessee's specific contentions are not explicitly recorded in the provided text. However, the appeal itself indicates a challenge to the addition made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A). Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that since an ex-parte order was passed by the CIT(A) due to the assessee's non-compliance, the matter should be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo adjudication. The Revenue relied on ITAT decisions in the cases of Brajesh Singh Bhadoria Vs. Dy./ACIT and Collector Mining, Kondagaon Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), which dealt with similar situations of ex-parte orders and non-compliance.

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 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), Raipur-3 dated 09.07.2026 for the assessment year 2014-15 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

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 by

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →