What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had abandoned their case due to habitual non-compliance and willful disregard of legal processes. No further opportunity would be granted.

The assessee failed to provide submissions or evidence before the CIT(Appeals) despite multiple opportunities, including a final opportunity granted by the ITAT. This non-compliance led to an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's persistent non-compliance and failure to present their case warrants dismissal of the appeal without adjudicating on merits.

Jaipal Ruprela, Raipur vs ITO | ITAT Raipur 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA

For Respondent: Shri Rituparna Namdeo, CIT-DR

Hearing: 16.06.2026Pronounced: 18.06.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:

The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 27.01.2026 for the assessment year 2016-17 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

At the outset, it is observed that Ld. CIT(A) has held as follows:

“The earlier appeal was disposed of wherein the addition was confirmed due to continuous non-compliance on the part of the appellant and complete absence of any submissions or evidences during appellate proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant carried the matter in further appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur Bench. The Hon'ble ITAT, while noting that the appeal before the first appellate authority had been disposed of ex-parte due to non-compliance, restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to afford one final opportunity to the appellant and to adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law. Pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT, the appeal was fixed for fresh hearing and notices of hearing were duly issued to the appellant granting one final and effective opportunity to place on record written submissions, documentary evidences and any other material in support of the grounds of appeal. It is, however, noted that despite due service of notices and grant of sufficient time, the appellant has once again failed to avail the opportunity so granted. No written submissions, no supporting documentary evidence and no explanation whatsoever have been filed on record. Thus, even after the matter was restored by the Hon'ble ITAT with a specific direction to provide one final opportunity, the appellant has chosen not to participate in the appellate proceedings and has failed to discharge the basic obligation cast upon him to pursue the appeal and substantiate the grounds raised. I have carefully considered the assessment order, the grounds of appeal and the material available on record. In the present case, the Ld. AO made the addition as the appellant failed to explain the nature and source of the said credits despite issuance of statutory notices and grant of repeated opportunities. During the earlier appellate proceedings also, the appellant did not file any submissions or evidences. Even after the matter was restored by

3 Jaipal Ruprela Vs. ITO, Ward-3)(1), Raipur ITA No.383/RPR/2026

the Hon'ble ITAT with a specific direction to grant one final opportunity, the appellant has once again failed to place on record any written submission, explanation or supporting material.” 3. That even without going into the merits of the case this is the second round of appeal before this Bench. That in the first round the Tribunal as evident from the aforestated observation of the CIT(A)/NFAC had provided final opportunity to the assessee to represent his case on merits. That even after getting such final opportunity in the second round also the assessee had evaded the processes of law and has not responded to any of the hearing notices, nor had file any submission or evidences to substantiate the grounds of appeal before the First Appellate Authority. It is evident that assessee is negligent and had adopted a casual approach towards the processes of law. Providing any further opportunity would even defeat the purpose of principles of natural justice for those cases where the assessee is bonafide and has respect towards the legal processes. Similar view has been taken by the ITAT, Raipur in the case of Hanumant Ingots Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA Nos. 245, 246 & 247/RPR /2026, dated 08.05.2026, wherein it was held as follows:

“3. That in the first round of appeal, the assessee was non-responsive before the First Appellate Authority and therefore, on appeal before this Bench, the assessee was provided one final opportunity to represent its matter on merits before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. However, in the remand proceedings also, the assessee did not care to attend the hearing before the First Appellate Authority which again resulted in passing of an ex-parte order due to non-compliance by the assessee.

4 Jaipal Ruprela Vs. ITO, Ward-3)(1), Raipur ITA No.383/RPR/2026

At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to family disputes, there was non-compliance in the second round of appeal. However, the fact of the matter is on the ground of principles of natural justice, when this Bench has provided one final opportunity, the assessee was duty bound to respond to the hearing notices before the First Appellate Authority and should have represented the matter on merits. The process of law is not dependent on the internal problem faced by the assessee. That in fiscal matter strict compliance is necessary and once, an opportunity as finality has been accorded, still the if the assessee has not complied with, it is nothing but willful disregard of the legal process. 5. Where this Bench had given the assessee a chance to prove their case and they had still failed to comply, in such scenario, it is held that the assessee had abandoned its case. Failure to upload document or attend hearing where a final opportunity was given to the assessee reveals that the assessee habitually acted in defiance of law. That such careless and evasive assessee cannot stand chance for any further opportunity. It would also set a wrong precedent if this kind of appeals are viewed with generosity. We do not find any infirmity with the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the respective appeals which are upheld. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 245 & 246/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 are dismissed.” 4. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial pronouncements and on examination of the facts on the same parity of reasoning it is held that where this Bench had given the assessee a chance to prove their case and they had still failed to comply, in such scenario, it is held that the assessee had abandoned his case. Failure to upload document or attend hearing where a final opportunity was given to the assessee reveals that the assessee habitually acted in defiance of law. That such careless and evasive assessee cannot stand chance for any further opportunity. It would also set a wrong precedent if this kind of appeals are viewed with generosity. We do not find any infirmity with the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the respective appeal which isupheld.

5 Jaipal Ruprela Vs. ITO, Ward-3)(1), Raipur ITA No.383/RPR/2026

As per the above terms the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 18th June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; �दनांक / Dated : 18th June, 2026. Tanmay, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� /The Appellant. 2. ��यथ� /The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur.

JAIPAL RUPRELA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments