MAHABIR AGARWAL,GANGTOK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, 3(2), GANGTOK, SIKKIM

ITA 41/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 April 2026AY 2017-1810 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, but the assessment was completed at a much higher income after adding a significant amount as unexplained money. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being an old settler of Sikkim domiciled before April 26, 1975, is eligible for exemption under Section 10(26AAA). The addition made by the Assessing Officer was therefore set aside.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(26AAA) as an old settler of Sikkim. Whether the addition of unexplained money under Section 69A was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(26AAA),Section 69A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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 17.12.2019 of the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 143(3) of the Assessment Year 2017- 18 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2.

The brief facts of the case of the assessee, assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs. 21,87,070/- the case of the assessee was selected for comple

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.

See plans and prices

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)

All 60 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(26AAA) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →