CHARLES PYNGROPE,SHILLONG vs. ITO W-1 SHILLONG, SHILLONG

PER BENCH:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 18.06.2025 for the AY 2021-22. 2. The assessee has raised two effective issues in the grounds of appeal. First challenging the order of ld. CIT (A) confirming the order of the ld. AO wherein the addition of ₹34,52,17,052/- was made as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act)
Charles Pyngrope; A.Y. 2021-22

and second, challenging the confirmation of addition of ₹1,43,24,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act by the ld. AO in respect of cash deposited.
3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset stated that there was no proper compliance before the ld. AO qua the money received for the land acquisition as well as the cash deposited by the assessee in ICICI bank of ₹67 lacs and in SBI of ₹76.24 lacs resulting into the above additions in the hands of the assessee in the assessment order. Similarly, in the appellate proceedings the ld. CIT (A) confirmed the additions after calling for a remand report from the ld.
AO which was duly furnished by the AO, however, the assessee could not file any rejoinder despite three opportunities granted by the ld.
CIT (A). The ld. AR therefore prayed that the appeal may be restored to the file of the ld. AO so that all the evidences could be placed on record and the case could be decided based on the said evidences after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
4. The ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the arguments of the ld. AR by submitting that in this case the assessee has been non- compliant throughout before the ld. AO as well as the ld. CIT (A). The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has filed an affidavit before the election commission of India declaring his movable and immovable assets. However, the impugned land property which has been acquired and assessee received the compensation to the tune of ₹34,52,17,058/- was not disclosed by the assessee in the affidavit filed by the assessee before Election Commission of India. The ld. DR
Charles Pyngrope; A.Y. 2021-22

submitted that thus affidavit filed by the assessee is wrong or the impugned asset did not belong to the assessee. The ld. DR vehemently submitted that a specific direction may be given to the ld. AO to examine the affidavit filed by the assessee before the Election Commission of India and also the land records relating the property acquired.
5. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case the assessee is a public representative (MLA). The assessee has been awarded compensation for acquisition of land which according to the ld. AR is an ancestral land of the assessee. We note that the assessee has not placed any ownership documents qua the said property before the ld. AO as well as the ld. CIT (A). Moreover, the affidavit shown by the ld. DR during the course of hearing did not contain the said property as belonging to the assessee. In our opinion, all these issues require examination and verification at the end of the ld. Assessing Officer. Similarly, the assessee has deposited a huge cash in the ICICI bank and SBI Bank aggregating to ₹1,43,24,000/ - qua which the sources were not explained and only general statements were made that these were amounts received as gift from the son and other relatives without any corroboration. Consequently, we restore the appeal to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to examine the same in depth on all these issues after taking into account the property documents, affidavit filed by the assessee and other evidences which the assessee may wish to furnished in his defense and cash deposit into the bank and re-adjudicate the matter accordingly after affording reasonable
Charles Pyngrope; A.Y. 2021-22

opportunity of hearing to the assessee. At the same time, we direct the assessee to co-operate in the assessment proceedings failing which adverse view may be taken.
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 13.03.2026. (DUVVURU RL REDDY)
(RAJESH KUMAR)
(VICE PRESIDENT)
(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Guwahati, Dated: 13.03.2026
Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to:

BY ORDER,//

Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst.