MOJUM DULOM,ITANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-ITANAGAR, ITANAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 150/GTY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 April 2023AY 2016-172 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee. To ensure justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2016-17. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an ex-parte assessment as the assessee failed to furnish necessary documents. The CIT(A) allowed the exemption, but the additional evidence filed by the assessee was not considered due to procedural non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing exemption without considering additional evidence, and whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(26)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Bhati, FCA
For Respondent: Shri P.S. Thuingaleng, ACIT
Hearing: 27.04.2023Pronounced: 28.04.2023

O R D E R

PER SONJOY SARMA, JM:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 23.03.2020 of ld. CIT(A), Guwahati-1 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’]. The issue raised in this appeal is against the order of ld. CIT(A) allowing the exemption u/s 10(26) of the Act to the assessee, thereby affirming the order of the AO.

2.

At the outset, we would like to mention that the assessment has been made ex- parte in this case for the reason that the assessee has not furnished any documents qua, the admissibility of exemption u/s 10(26) of the Act to the assessee. However, the additional evidences filed before the ld CIT(A) were not considered because petition under u/s 46A of the rules was not filed and, therefore, ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal of the assessee without taking into account those evidences into consideration. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the facts on record, we are of the view that it would be in the interest of justice and fairplay if the assessee is given one more opportunity to represent the case before the AO. Accordingly, we set aside the appeal to the file of the AO.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 10(26)

All 148 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(26) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →