AMAN WARR,SHILLONG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SHILLONG

ITA 189/GTY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati09 October 2026AY 2019-206 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee claimed to be a Government employee who undertook foreign visits for official purposes, proper documentation was not furnished. To claim exemption under Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee failed to provide reliable documents to prove the source of income arising from the specified area. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for de-novo consideration. The AO is directed to decide the issue afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their claim with cogent documents. The assessee is also directed to provide necessary documentation and avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments to ensure an early disposal of the case. The Tribunal cautioned that no further leniency would be granted if the assessee fails to comply. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Aman Warr, is appealing an order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) dated 07.12.2025, which confirmed the Assessing Officer's (AO) order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO's order, dated 27.02.2024, confirmed an addition of Rs. 27,92,769 made under Section 69A for unexplained bank deposits and denied an exemption of Rs. 44,62,963 claimed under Section 10(26). The assessee, a practicing doctor and Director in Meghalaya, received a notice under Section 148 for not filing a return of income, despite information suggesting high-value currency and security purchases. The assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(26) due to belonging to a Scheduled Tribe and income accruing within specified tribal areas, citing foreign currency purchases for official tours. The AO found insufficient evidence for the exemption and made the addition. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are bad in law and without proper application of mind? 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 27,92,769 made by the AO under Section 69A of the Act, treating bank deposits as unexplained money, is sustainable? 3. Whether the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(26) of the Act for income amounting to Rs. 44,62,963? Assessee's Contentions: - The reassessment proceedings are bad in law (Ground 8). - The bank deposits are not unexplained money, and proper explanations and supporting facts were submitted (Ground 2). - The assessee belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community, and income accrued within specified tribal areas is exempt under Section 10(26) (Grounds 4 & 5). - The residence within Shillong Municipality does not disqualify for exemption under Section 10(26), considering constitutional provisions and the intent of the exemption (Ground 5). - The nature of bank transactions, including foreign currency transactions and reversal entries for official tours, were not properly appreciated (Ground 6). - Explanations regarding the sources of deposits, including professional receipts from medical practice, were not considered (Ground 7). - The assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(26) as a Government employee on official foreign visits, and income from specified areas is exempt under Article 265 of the Constitution (Ground 6). Revenue's Contentions: - The assessee failed to produce cogent evidence to prove that the income is exempt under Section 10(26). - Salary slips were unsigned, and no documents proved official tours outside India were sanctioned by the employer. - The order of the lower authorities should be upheld.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 69A,Section 10(26),Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI

For Appellant: Shri Aman Warr (self)
For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 19.08.2026Pronounced: 09.10.2026

PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)], dated 07.12.2025, DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083211342(1) as the Ld.CIT(A) confirming the order passed by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 27.02.2024 on the following grounds of appeal:

2 Aman Warr “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts in confirming the assessment order passed under section 147 read wi

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.

Create a free accountSign in

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →