ITAT Raipur Judgments — November 2026

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(Appeals) passes an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance, and the assessee subsequently raises legal grounds before the ITAT, the Tribunal should not adjudicate these grounds directly. Doing so would usurp the power of the CIT(Appeals) and bypass the statutory adjudication process mandated by Sections 250(4) and 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the intent of the legislature is for the first appellate authority to pass a speaking order on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, to uphold the principles of natural justice and the statutory framework, the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for denovo adjudication. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters, directing the assessee to comply with future notices and represent the case on merits. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to pass a speaking order within three months.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(Appeals) passes an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance, and the assessee subsequently raises legal grounds before the ITAT, the Tribunal should not adjudicate these grounds directly. Doing so would usurp the power of the CIT(Appeals) and bypass the statutory adjudication process mandated by Sections 250(4) and 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the intent of the legislature is for the first appellate authority to pass a speaking order on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, to uphold the principles of natural justice and the statutory framework, the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for denovo adjudication. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters, directing the assessee to comply with future notices and represent the case on merits. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to pass a speaking order within three months.

The Tribunal held that in cases where an ex-parte order is passed by the CIT(Appeals) due to the assessee's non-compliance, and the assessee seeks to have the matter decided on merits or raises legal grounds, the Tribunal should not usurp the powers of the First Appellate Authority. Instead, following the principles of natural justice and the scheme of the Act, the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication on merits. This provides a final opportunity to the assessee to comply and present their case. The Tribunal cited its own decisions in Brajesh Singh Bhadoria and Collector Mining, Kondagaon, as well as other benches, to support this view. The Tribunal directed the CIT(Appeals) 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.

The Tribunal held that in cases where an ex-parte order is passed by the CIT(Appeals) due to the assessee's non-compliance, and the assessee subsequently appeals to the ITAT, the Tribunal should not directly adjudicate the legal grounds. Instead, the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication on merits. The Tribunal reasoned that directly deciding legal grounds in such a scenario would usurp the power of the CIT(Appeals), who is the first appellate authority mandated to pass a speaking order after considering the assessee's submissions as per Sections 250(4) and 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Allowing the Tribunal to decide legal grounds without a substantive order from the CIT(Appeals) would also create an easy route for assessees to bypass compliance, defeating the legislative intent. Therefore, to uphold the principles of natural justice and the scheme of the Act, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, providing one final opportunity to the assessee to comply and represent the case on merits. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to pass a speaking order within three months.

The Tribunal, respectfully following its earlier decision in the case of Sewaa Path Sanstha, set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption). The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) ought to have provided a speaking order after deliberating upon all the documents and evidence furnished by the assessee, with regard to the objects and genuineness of the activities. The Tribunal held that the purpose of registration under Section 12A/12AB and recognition under Section 80G is to enhance socio-economic welfare and achieve the objectives of the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the file of the CIT(Exemption) with specific directions to form satisfaction in terms of Section 12AB of the Act after examining all relevant details and evidence, complying with the principles of natural justice. The appeal pertaining to Section 80G exemption was also remanded with similar directions. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal, respectfully following its earlier decision in the case of Sewaa Path Sanstha, set aside the order of the CIT(Exemption). The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) ought to have provided a speaking order after deliberating upon all the documents and evidence furnished by the assessee, with regard to the objects and genuineness of the activities. The Tribunal held that the purpose of registration under Section 12A/12AB and recognition under Section 80G is to enhance socio-economic welfare and achieve the objectives of the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the file of the CIT(Exemption) with specific directions to form satisfaction in terms of Section 12AB of the Act after examining all relevant details and evidence, complying with the principles of natural justice. The appeal pertaining to Section 80G exemption was also remanded with similar directions. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that in cases where an ex-parte order is passed by the CIT(Appeals) due to the assessee's non-compliance, and the assessee subsequently raises legal grounds before the ITAT, the Tribunal should not adjudicate such legal grounds directly. Instead, the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee. The reasoning is that the CIT(Appeals) is the first appellate authority mandated to pass a speaking order on merits as per Section 250(4) & (6) of the Income Tax Act. Allowing the Tribunal to decide legal grounds in the absence of such an order would usurp the powers of the CIT(Appeals) and defeat the legislative intent of the Act. The Tribunal emphasized the principles of natural justice and the need for a substantive order by the first appellate authority. The assessee was directed to comply with hearing notices and represent the matter on merits before the CIT(Appeals). The CIT(Appeals) was directed to pass a speaking order within three months. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that in cases where the CIT(Appeals) passes an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance, and the assessee raises legal grounds, the Tribunal should not adjudicate such grounds directly. Instead, the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for de novo adjudication on merits, providing one final opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal reasoned that adjudicating legal grounds in such a scenario would usurp the power of the CIT(Appeals), who is the first appellate authority required to pass a speaking order on merits as per Sections 250(4) and 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Allowing direct adjudication by the Tribunal without prior substantive adjudication by the CIT(Appeals) would defeat the legislative intent and the established hierarchy of appeals. The Tribunal cited its own previous decisions in Brajesh Singh Bhadoria and Collector Mining, Kondagaon, as well as the principle of natural justice, to support this approach. The assessee was directed to comply fully with the hearing notices from the CIT(Appeals) in this final opportunity.