KIRAMIN FRANCIS ZELIANG,DIMAPUR, NAGALAND vs. ITO WARD 1, DIMAPUR

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 No.116/GTY/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kiramin Francis Zeliang…………………………………….………...Appellant House No. 18, Ward No.5, Haralu Colony, Burma Camp Dimapur, Nagaland-797112 [PAN: AAZPZ3251F] vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dimapur……………………………..……...…..…..Respondent Nagland-797112 Appearances by: Shri Sourav Roy, CA, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : May 04, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : May 05, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.01.2026 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 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, for the assessment year 2017-18, the assessee did not file return of income. Based on the information available with the department, it was noticed that the assessee had made substantial cash deposits amounting to Rs. 22,94,000/- in his bank account during the relevant period. Since no return of income was filed u/s 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, calling upon the assessee to file return of income and explain the source of the cash deposits made by the assessee. However, the assessee failed to comply with the said notices and did not furnish any

ITA No.116/GTY/2026 Kiramin Francis Zeliang explanation. Subsequently, notice u/s 131 was issued to the concerned bank to obtain details of the cash deposits. Despite several opportunities, the assessee remained in compliance. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act and made an addition of Rs. 22,94,000/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The said amount was treated as income and taxed accordingly. Further, the Assessing Officer determined the peak credit of Rs. 1,70,00,000/- as income in the absence of any return of income. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act, assessing the total income of Rs. 1,92,44,000/- as the total income of the assessee 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a considerable delay of 2008 days. In this connection, the assessee had filed an application seeking condonation of delay; however, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without properly considering the reasons furnished for delay and without adjudicating the issues on merit. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR stated that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was supported by sufficient cause and the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to properly consider the condonation application. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee has filed an affidavit in this connection, but it was not properly examined by the Ld. CIT(A). Further, he stated that the assessee belongs to Scheduled Tribe, resides in a specified area and earns income from a specified area which is exempted u/s 10(26) of the Act. He, therefore, prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee so as to enable the assessee to prove its case.

ITA No.116/GTY/2026 Kiramin Francis Zeliang 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the decision of the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. We observed that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal primarily on the ground of delay without properly examining whether the assessee has sufficient cause for such delay. Considering this substantial delay of 2008 days, it was incumbent upon the Ld. CIT(A) to examine the condonation application in detail and record the findings as to whether the delay deserves to be condoned. However, the assessee has raised contentions regarding the income from a specified area u/s 10(26) of the Act which require proper examination. In the interest of justice and fair play, we remand the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to first examine the issue relating to condonation of delay and decide the same by passing a reasoned order, and if the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(A) shall adjudicate the appeal on merit in accordance with law. During the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee shall cooperate in the proceedings and comply with all notices. The Ld. CIT(A) shall also examine the assessee’s claim, if any, regarding eligibility under the provisions of section 10(26) of the Act. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 05th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 05.05.2026. DP, PS

ITA No.116/GTY/2026 Kiramin Francis Zeliang 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