NANGPA MOSSANG,ARUNACHAL PRADESH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TINSUKIA

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “GUWAHATI ‘SMC’ BENCH, GAUHATI

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg

आदेश / ORDER The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 06.03.2020 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Dibrugarh [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has invited my attention to the impugned order of the Assessing Officer to submit that the same is an ex parte order. The ld. counsel, in this respect, has further explained that the sole issue involved in this appeal is relating to the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the cash

Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nangpa Mossang deposits made during the demonetisation period. The ld. counsel has further submitted that the assessee is a member of a scheduled tribe residing in Arunachal Pradesh and earning a livelihood there. As per the laws of the Income Tax Act 1961 she is exempt from Income Tax u/s 10(26) of the Act. That she did not receive the notice of hearing resulting in passing of ex parte order. However, the assessee duly represented through counsel before the CIT(A) and furnished evidence of source of deposit etc. The ld. counsel has also invited my attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A), wherein, in the statement of facts, the above facts were also mentioned which have also been reproduced in the impugned order of the CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) declined to look into the explanation and evidences furnished by the assessee holding that the assessee has not produced the same before the Assessing Officer and further that the assessee has not filed an application for submitting additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.

I note that the impugned order of the CIT(A) is a non-speaking order. The ld. CIT(A) has failed to apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The assessee has already explained in statement of facts that the assessee was not aware about the notice issued u/s 142(1) by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A), under the circumstances, ought to have taken into consideration the explanation/evidences furnished by the assessee. However, the ld. CIT(A) has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested with him. In view of this, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for decision afresh. Needless to say that the ld. CIT(A) will give proper opportunity to the assessee to furnish the Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nangpa Mossang relevant details and present the case and thereafter will pass a speaking order.

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

NANGPA MOSSANG,ARUNACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TINSUKIA