JARPUM GAMLIN,PAPUMPARE, ARUNACHAL PRADESH vs. ASSESSING OFFICER W-1, TEZPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL – GUWAHATI BENCH VIRTUAL BENCH AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 65/GTY/2026 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Jarpum Gamlin……………………………………………...………...Appellant S & G Printing & Publishing House CM Bunglow Road, Niti Vihar, Itanagar Papumpare, Arunachal Pradesh-791111 [PAN: AFJPG4442C] vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Tezpur……………………..……...…..…..Respondent Assam-784001 Appearances by: Shri Ashok Kumar Agrawal, FCA, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : April 23, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : April 30, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2015-16, declaring total income of Rs.2,20,220/- and also declared agricultural and horticulture income of Rs.25,89,400/- and exempt income of Rs.1,52,98,000/- in the return of income. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that there were total deposits of Rs.3,23,53,588/-. During

ITA No.65/GTY/2026 Jarpum Gamlin the assessment proceedings, the contention of assessee was that the entire deposit made with the bank account were originated from the schedule are and entire income was claimed to be exempt u/s 10(26) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the submission made by the assessee and treated the Rs.22,68,287/- calculated 8% of Rs.2,83,53,588/- as profit from business and balance amount of Rs.1,26,29,713/- was treated as unexplained income and the Assessing Officer passed the Assessing Officer u/s 143(2) total addition of Rs.1,56,36,100/- to the income of the assessee. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer due to non- compliance by the assessee before him. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee had claimed exemption u/s 10(26) of the Act on the ground that income earned from activities carried out in the specified area, thus exempt from payment of tax. It was further submitted that authorities below did not properly examine the claim of exemption and matter requires fresh consideration. 5. We have considered the submission of the Ld. AR and heard Ld. DR, after perusing the material available on record, we find that the assessee had claimed substantial exemption u/s 10(26) of the Act and the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed without properly adjudicating the issue due to repeated non-compliance by the assessee. At the same time, it is also evident that assessee has failed to appear on multiple occasions, it shows there was a clear negligence on the part of assessee resulting delay and unnecessary consumption of judicial time. Considering the totality of the fact, in the interest of justice

ITA No.65/GTY/2026 Jarpum Gamlin and fair play, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to examine the assessee’s claim of the exemption u/s 10(26) of the Act and assessee shall furnish all necessary supporting documents and evidence to substantiate the claim. Doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. However, considering the negligence conduct of the assessee and repeated non-compliance, a cost of Rs.10,000/- is imposed on the assessee. The same amount shall be deposited with the Income Tax Department and proof of such payment shall be furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) failing which the appellate authority shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the above direction.

Kolkata, the 30th April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 30.04.2026. DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches