TAI AZAD,SANGRAM, ARUNACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 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. 96/GTY/2026 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tai Azad……………………………………………….………...Appellant Sangram, Kurung Kumey Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh Pin-791118 [PAN: AXKPA4297N] vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tezpur ……………………..……...…..…..Respondent Assam-784001 Appearances by: None, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : April 20, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : April 22, 2026

ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.12.2025 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 2019-20. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee did not file return of income for the assessment year 2019-20. Based on the information available on the insight portal, it was noticed that assessee had made substantial cash deposit during the year under consideration. Accordingly, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated, during the course of assessment proceedings, notices were issued from time to time, however the assessee did not appear nor furnish the required details. In

ITA No.96/GTY/2026 Tai Azad absence of such compliance, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment and made the additions on account of unexplained cash deposit by assessing the income of the assessee at Rs.99,40,660/-. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition due to lack of supporting documents by sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer. 4. Still aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. Therefore, the appeal is being disposed of ex- parted with the assistance of the Ld. DR. From the submission of the facts filed by the assessee, it is noticed that assessee claimed that he is associated with Group ‘D’ employees of the Deputy Director of School Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, and derive salary income from this employment. It is further stated that the issues involve relating to applicability of the section 10(26) of the Act and claim of exemption thereunder. However, it observed that no supporting documents were furnished by the assessee, either before the Assessing Officer or before the Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate the claim. 5. We after considering the material available on record, we observed that additions have been sustained primarily due to non-compliance and absence of supporting evidence. Considering the nature of the claim of exemption u/s 10(26) of the Act and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that assessee should be granted one more opportunity to substantiate his claim with necessary evidence. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to examine the claim of the assessee afresh in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish

ITA No.96/GTY/2026 Tai Azad necessary supporting documents and comply with the notices issued during the proceedings. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Kolkata, the 22nd April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 22.04.2026. 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