What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was negligent and evasive in pursuing the appeal, having failed to respond to multiple notices and opportunities. Allowing another opportunity would set a wrong precedent.

The assessee's appeal was filed with a 15-day delay, which was condoned. This was the second round of appeal, with the ITAT having previously set aside the CIT(Appeals) order to decide on merits. The assessee failed to appear or provide submissions in both rounds.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to the assessee's persistent failure to appear and cooperate with the appellate authorities, despite multiple opportunities.

Geeta Patel, Raipur vs ITO | s.250 | ITAT Raipur 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &, Ms. Vidya Verma, CAs

For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Hearing: 24.04.2026Pronounced: 24.04.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 13.03.2026 for the assessment year 2015-16 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

At the very outset, it is noted that there is delay of 15 days and neither any condonation petition nor any affidavit has been filed by the assessee. However, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to some technical reasons, the appeal could not be filed in proper time.

The Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection for condonation of such delay considering smallness of the number of days of delay and submitted that in the interest of substantive justice, delay may be condoned.

I am of the considered view that the principles enshrined in the following decisions viz. (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC); (ii) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (iii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iv) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal

3 Geeta Patel Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.288/RPR/2026

No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025, hearing the submissions of the parties herein, delay of 15 days is condoned for the principle of uplifting the judicious approach in condoning such delay and also at the same time, since the Ld. Counsel for the assessee had made a statement at Bar that in the era of digital finding, these are practical difficulties faced by the assessee, therefore, the delay if any, needs to be condoned. In view thereof, the said delay of 15 days is condoned and the matter is heard on merits.

This is the second round of appeal before this Bench. The ITAT, Raipur vide its order passed in ITA No.125/RPR/2025, dated 16.04.2025, had set-aside the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC with a direction to decide the matter on merits in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

That as is discernable from record, the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had followed the direction of the Bench and provided reasonable opportunity vide notice u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) issued electronically asking for response regarding hearing of the matter. However, this time also, the assessee did not bother to comply with any of the hearing notices and therefore, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was again constrained to pass an ex-parte order. These facts are evident from Paras

4 Geeta Patel Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.288/RPR/2026

4.1 and 4.2 of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which are extracted as follows: “4.1 Following the direction of the Hon’ble ITAT, in order to afford opportunity to the appellant, notices u/s.250 of the Act were issued electronically in E-proceedings/ITBA facility immediately after enablement of communication window on 06.02.2026. Details of opportunities given to the appellant are as follows: Sl. DIN/ Notice No. Date of issue Date fixed for No of notice hearing . 1. ITBA/NFAC/F/APL 06.02.2026 12.02.2026 _4/2025- 26/1085663519(1) On 12.02.2026, neither any compliance received nor any adjournment letter was filed. 2. ITBA/NFAC/F/APL 25.02.2026 02.03.2026 _4/2025- On 02.03.2026, 26/1086520333(1) neither any compliance received nor any adjournment letter was filed. 3. ITBA/NFAC/F/APL 03.03.2026 09.03.2026 _4/2025- On 09.03.2026, 26/1086803386(1) neither any compliance received nor any adjournment letter was filed.

4.2 It has been brought out in the preceding part of this order that 3 notices u/s.250 of the Act were issued by the First Appellate Authority which have remained un-complied. Therefore, apart from the order, other material available to the

5 Geeta Patel Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.288/RPR/2026

undersigned is the grounds of appeal and the statement of facts which have been submitted by the appellant at the time of filing of appeal. Appellant has not availed any of the opportunities given by the First Appellate Authority and no submissions, documents or evidences were filed. It is pertinent that in order to decide this appeal in a timely manner a number of notices/ communications through ITBA portal were sent to the appellant. However, there evidently has been no submission from the appellant till date. There is no gainsaying that once the appeal is filed by the appellant, it is obligatory on his part to purposefully and co-operatively pursue the same in a worthwhile manner, which the appellant has evidently failed to do. It clearly appears that the appellant has not even bothered to pursue this appeal in any productive manner.”

That in the first round of appeal, this Bench had provided one final opportunity to the assessee to represent the matter before the First Appellate Authority and accordingly, such opportunities were provided by the said authority to the assessee. The assessee is not bothered to respond to any of the hearing notices nor has filed any written submission, for which, once again, an ex-parte order had to be passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the assessee is negligent and evasive in nature evading the process of law. That such kind of negligent assessee cannot be allowed to take benefit of her own wrong. That when once final opportunity had been provided to the assessee in the first round of appeal, the assessee was duty bound to respond to the notices in compliance to the order of the Tribunal which she miserably failed. This Bench cannot set a wrong example by providing another opportunity to such evasive and negligent assessee. The process

6 Geeta Patel Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.288/RPR/2026

of law needs to be put to rest for such reckless assessee. The process of law therefore cannot help such reckless assessee. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present appeal preferred by the assessee which is therefore dismissed.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in open court on 24th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; �दनांक / Dated : 24th April, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, Digitally signed Samiran by Samiran // True Copy // Bera, Sr. Bera, Sr. PS, ITAT, Raipur Senior Private Secretary PS, ITAT, Date: आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur 2026.04.24 Raipur 15:11:14 +05'30'

GEETA PATEL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments