USHA DEVI MITTAL AGARWAL,GANGTOK vs. I.T.O., WARD 3(1), GANGTOK, SIKKIM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 519/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 August 2025AY 2015-20164 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the orders passed by the lower authorities (AO and CIT(A)) were ex-parte and there was no proper compliance by the assessee, it was inclined to remit the appeals to the file of the AO in the interest of justice. The Tribunal directed the AO to pass a fresh order after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to place all documentary evidence and present arguments on both factual and legal bases. The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court had passed a final order on this issue, and the assessee had failed to provide details or documentary evidence before the CIT(A) despite opportunities. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Usha Devi Mittal Agarwal, is an appellant before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging orders dated 09.01.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (CIT(A)) for Assessment Years (AY) 2015-16 and 2017-18. For AY 2015-16, the assessee, a Sikkim original settler, did not file a return of income, claiming exemption under Section 10(26AAA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Her case was selected for reassessment under Section 147. The assessee filed a return in response to the notice, but the Assessing Officer (AO) declared it invalid as it was filed after the due date. The AO passed an ex-parte order under Section 147, assessing income at ₹23,611/- by rejecting the exemption. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for lack of documentary evidence. Similar facts pertain to AY 2017-18.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT should remit the appeals back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to file documentary evidence and present her case on factual and legal grounds? Assessee's contentions: The assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) argued that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders, ignoring the assessee's status as a Sikkim original settler entitled to exemption under Section 10(26AAA). The AR submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has decided this issue in favour of the assessee, which was overlooked by the CIT(A). The AR also raised legal grounds regarding the reasons recorded and the approval of the competent authority. The primary prayer was for the appeals to be remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee. Revenue's contentions: The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the impugned orders but did not object to remitting the appeals back to the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(26AAA),Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Mangtinlen Haokip, DR
Hearing: 28.07.2025Pronounced: 08.08.2025

& 520/KOL/2024 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Usha Devi Mittal Agarwal Income Tax Officer, H.No. S VII/84 Society Hardware Ward 3(1), Gangtok, Sikkim Store, Palzor Stadium Road, Vs. Gangtok, Sikkim-737202 Gangtok, East Sikkim-737201 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. ATEPA8462F Assessee by : Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Mangtinlen Haokip, DR Date of hearing: 28.07.2025 Date of pronouncement: 08.08.2025 O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM:

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 09.01.2024 for A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2017-18.

2.

As the facts and circumstances are similar in both the appeals in & 520/KOL/2024 for A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2017-18, Hence, we will take as lead case and decide the issue.

519/KOL/2024 for A.Y. 2015-16 03. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee did not file any return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 as she is a Sikkim original settler and residing in Sikkim, hence, according to her she is entitled to the exemption u/s 10(26AAA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The case of the assessee was selected for reassessment u/s 147 of the Act and in response to the notice, assessee filed the return. However, the

4.

Aggrieved by the said order, assessee preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT (A), wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed because of reason that the assessee did not file any details or documentary evidences in support of the statement of facts and grounds of appeal.

5.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee preferred appeal before us

6.

The ld. AR instead of arguing into the merit of the case have only prayed that the appeal be remitted back to the file of the ld. AO for fresh consideration with a liberty to the assessee to file documentary evidences. The ld. AR submits that the ld. AO as well as the ld. CIT (A) has passed an ex-parte order ignoring the fact that the assessee is Sikkim original settler and entitled for the exemption. The ld. AR further submits that Hon'ble Apex Corut has also decided this issue in the favour of the assessee that has been ignored by the ld. CIT (A). The ld. AR has also taken the legal ground regarding the reasons recorded and approval/ sanctioned of the competent authority. His prayer is that the appeal of the assessee be remitted back to the file of the ld. AO for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee.

7.

Contrary to that, the ld. DR though supports the impugned order but did not raise any objection in remitting the appeal of the assessee to the file of the ld. AO.

Since, the orders passed by the lower authorities are an ex-parte order and there was no proper compliance, hence, for the interest of justice, we are inclined to remit the appeal to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to pass a fresh order after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to place all the documentary evidences and law to this effect. The ld. AO directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the assessee on factual basis as well as on legal basis. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

520/KOL/2024 for A.Y. 2017-18 09. The issue raised in this appeal is similar to one as decided by us in ITA No. 519/KOL/2024. Accordingly, our decision would, mutatis mutandis,

10.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08.08.2025.

More judgments on Section 10(26AAA)

All 61 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(26AAA) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →