ITAT Jaipur has condoned a 631-day delay in filing an appeal, citing lack of digital literacy, and restored the case for fresh hearing. The tribunal said taxpayers should not lose their right to be heard due to technical limitations or lack of awareness of the online tax system.
Struggling with digital tax system? Taxpayers may ask for relief from I-T dept – ITAT ruling clarifies (AI-generated image)
In a significant relief for taxpayers struggling with the digital tax system, the Jaipur bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has given a second chance to a Jaipur-based individual who delayed filing his appeal by over 600 days, citing lack of knowledge of online procedures.
In the case of Kishan Lal Meena vs ITO, the tribunal condoned a delay of 631 days and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO), stressing that a taxpayer’s right to be heard should not be denied due to technical or procedural limitations.
What was the case about?
The matter relates to Assessment Year 2009–10, where the Income Tax Department reopened the case after detecting credit card expenses of Rs 15.75 lakh through financial transaction data.
The taxpayer had not filed any income tax return and not responded to notices issued under Sections 148 and 142(1).
With no explanation available, the AO proceeded with a best judgment assessment and treated the entire amount as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C.
As the order noted: “No submission or evidence has been received… therefore it is presumed that the assessee has nothing to say.”
What happened at the first appeal stage?
The taxpayer approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], but even there:
No documents were filed
No submissions were made
As a result, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte and upheld the addition.
The appellate authority clearly observed that “the appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proof… no evidence has been submitted.”
Why was there a 631-day delay?
When the matter reached ITAT, there was a huge delay of 631 days in filing the appeal.
The taxpayer explained that he was only 12th pass and had no knowledge of computers or the income tax portal, so he was unaware of how to respond to digital notices.
He also argued that the delay was not intentional but occurred due to lack of awareness and technical understanding.
ITAT’s key observation: Right to be heard matters
The tribunal took a lenient and practical view of the situation.
It noted that the taxpayer had remained unrepresented earlier, and therefore, denying him a chance to present his case would be unfair.
In a crucial observation, the ITAT said: “The lis between the parties has to be decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down without providing opportunity of being heard.”
What did ITAT decide?
Instead of ruling on the merits, the tribunal condoned the 631-day delay, set aside the earlier orders, and restored the case to the AO for fresh adjudication.
However, it also cautioned the taxpayer to cooperate with proceedings and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Timeline of the case
2009–10: Relevant assessment year
March 2016: Case reopened under Section 147
2016 onwards: Multiple notices issued, no response
Assessment completed ex-parte with Rs 15.75 lakh addition
September 2023: CIT(A) dismisses appeal ex-parte
October 2025: ITAT condones delay and restores case
Why this ruling matters
This order highlights a growing concern in India’s tax system — digital compliance vs taxpayer awareness.
While the system has gone largely online, many taxpayers, especially in smaller cities or with limited education, still struggle with understanding notices, and using the income tax portal.
The ruling reinforces that procedural lapses should not override natural justice, especially when genuine hardship is involved.
It is important to note that this is a ruling of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). ITAT decisions can be challenged before the High Court and, thereafter, the Supreme Court. Therefore, legal positions may evolve depending on further appeals.
Disclaimer:
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional tax advice. Tax laws and regimes are subject to frequent changes by the government. Readers should verify details with official Income Tax Department notifications or consult a Chartered Accountant before making any financial decisions.
aniltikotekar4sme.com 