SONAM TSHERING BHUTIA,GANGTOK, SIKKIM vs. I.T.O. WARD - 3(1),, SIKKIM
What were the facts?
The assessee, a resident of Sikkim, deposited substantial cash during demonetization but did not file an income tax return. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 56,73,199/- as unexplained money. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 17,85,000/-.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a bonafide resident of Sikkim, is entitled to claim exemption under Section 10(26AAA) of the Act. The registered sale deeds submitted by the assessee sufficiently explained the consideration amount earned within the geographical limits of Sikkim.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee are unexplained money or represent income earned from sale of property within Sikkim, eligible for exemption under Section 10(26AAA).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 10(26AAA),Section 69A,Section 144,Section 139(1),Section 142(1),Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY
PER PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.07.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”) passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2017–
At the outset, it appears from the report of the Registry, the appeal of the assessee has been filed after a delay of 100 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit to condone the delay. Going over the contents of the ITA Nos.100/Kol/2026/AY 2017-18 Sonam Tshering Bhutia vs. ITO affidavit, we find suffic
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 10(26AAA)
- Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, Sikkim, Gangtok vs I.T.O., Ward - 3(1), GangtokITA 2630/KOL/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2019-2020
- Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), KolkataITA 1860/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2013-2014
- Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), KolkataITA 1859/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2012-2013
- Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Gangtok, Sikkim vs D.C.I.T., CC - 3(2), KolkataITA 1858/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2011-2012
- Ashok Agarwal, Sikkim vs ITO, Circle 3(2), GangtokITA 2467/KOL/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed14 Sept 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mbd Alchemie Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 7 Oct 2026
- Asa Corporate Catalyst INDIA Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 7 Oct 2026
- Reliable Accessories Private Limited vs. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii / Avato Ward 61,Zone 5,Delhi & Ors.Delhi · 7 Oct 2026
- M/S Cresent Stationers vs. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Ward 3 Delhi & Ors.Delhi · 7 Oct 2026
- Drum Roll Advertising Private Limited Vani Sood vs. Commissioner Of Dgst & Ors.Delhi · 7 Oct 2026