MINGMA SHERPA,GANGTOK vs. ITO, WARD 3(1),, GANGTOK
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee submitted new documents during the appeal that were not presented before the AO or CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, directing the assessee to provide all supporting evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee did not file an Income Tax Return for AY 2017-18 but deposited ₹10.15 crore cash in a bank account. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 and made an addition under Section 69A, taxing it under Section 115BBE. The CIT(A) upheld this, rejecting the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(26AAA) due to lack of substantiation.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposit was properly added under Section 69A, and whether the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(26AAA) despite not producing evidence before lower authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 10(26AAA)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA
O R D E R
PER SONJOY SARMA, JM :
This appeal by the assessee arises against the order dated 28.03.2024 of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’) passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’).
In this case, the assessee did not file the return of income for the assessment year under consideration, i.e., A.Y. 2017–18. During the year under consideration, the assessee had deposited cash amounting to ₹10,15,14,300 in a bank account maintained with the State Bank of India, Gangtok Branch. Accordingly, proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act after recording reasons and obtaining necessary approval from the competent authority. Subsequent notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was also issued. However, the assessee did not comply. Consequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making an 2 Mingma Sherpa addition of ₹10,15,14,300 under Section 69A of the Act and taxed the same under Section 115BBE of the Act.
The CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee contended that she was entitled to exemption under Section 10(26AAA) of the Act being a resident of Sikkim. However, the CIT(A) noted that the assessee could not properly substantiate the claim and therefore, rejected the contention made by assessee. Dissatisfied with the above order assessee is in appeal before this tribunal.
At the time of the hearing the Ld. AR submitted various document in order to substantiate the case of the assessee. However, Ld. DR stated that the documents were not produced before the Ld. AO at the time of the hearing of the case. Therefore, those documents need to be verified by the assessing officer.
We after hearing the rival submission of the parties and perusing the material available on record we find that the assessee has filed various documents in support of its claim, but these were not produced either before the Assessing Officer or before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the issue involved in the appeal. The assessee is directed to furnish all supporting documents and evidence to substantiate its claim. In case the assessee fails to comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, the latter shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
3 Mingma Sherpa 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026