BALAJI AUTOMOBILES,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

ITA 745/RPR/2026Status: HeardITAT Raipur16 October 2026AY 2017-1814 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 273 days in filing the appeal, finding no material on record to suggest malafide or deliberate conduct by the assessee for the delay. Respectfully considering various judicial pronouncements, the delay was condoned. Regarding the ex-parte order, the Tribunal, following its own previous decisions in similar cases (Brajesh Singh Bhadoria and Collector Mining, Kondagaon), set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(Appeals) must pass a speaking order in terms of Section 250(4) and (6) of the Act after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to comply with the hearing notices and represent the matter on merits, as this was considered a final opportunity. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Balaji Automobiles, filed an appeal before the ITAT Raipur Bench against the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was filed with a delay of 273 days. The assessee submitted an affidavit explaining the delay and praying for condonation. The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance with multiple notices issued under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notices were sent to the assessee's email address, which was confirmed as delivered. Despite several opportunities and a final opportunity, the assessee failed to furnish written submissions or documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 273 days in filing the appeal should be condoned? (Question of fact) 2. Whether the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC due to the assessee's non-compliance warrants a remand for denovo adjudication on merits? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and Section 250(4) & (6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The assessee sought condonation of delay by filing an affidavit explaining the reasons. The assessee relied on various judicial pronouncements, including Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO, Jagdish Prasad Singhania vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, and Inder Singh vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh. 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)/NFAC for denovo adjudication, providing a final opportunity to the assessee, citing the principles of natural justice and 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

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 Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate

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 17.10.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

At the very outset, it is noted that the present appeal is time barred by 273 days. Explaining the reasons for such delay and praying for condonation, the assessee had filed an “affidavit”, dated 03.10.2026 as well as

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 →