Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a Scheduled Tribe member and resident of Nagaland, deposited ₹2,66,07,000/- in her bank account but did not file an ITR for AY 2016-17. The Assessing Officer added this amount under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), claiming exemption under section 10(26) as an agriculturist and tribal, citing non-service of notice and inability to appear before the AO due to pregnancy. The CIT(A) deleted the addition without calling for a remand report or giving the AO an opportunity to examine additional evidence.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by deleting the addition without allowing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine the additional evidence submitted by the assessee and without obtaining a remand report, which is a contravention of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. The CIT(A) also failed to properly examine the source and quantum of income or its correlation to the bank deposits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the AO an opportunity to examine the evidence.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting an addition made under section 69A and allowing exemption under section 10(26) without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine additional evidence or call for a remand report as per Rule 46A of the IT Rules.
Sections Cited
250, 69A, 10(26), 148, 147, 144, 144B, Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI ‘DB’ BENCH AT KOLKATA
Before: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
order
: 11-December-2025 ORDER
PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2016-17 dated 30.08.2024. 1.1. The Registry has informed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 224 days. The Revenue has filed a petition for condonation of delay explaining the reasons that the order giving effect to the Ld. CIT(A)’s order could not be passed within the stipulated time limit due to unforeseen and persistent technical issues pertaining to the ITBA portal and significant geographical distance for communication with the ITO and the circuitous communication channel inherently which led to delays in official correspondence and processing. Furthermore, the original authorization to file the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT in this ITA No.: 156/GTY/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Imkummongla Pongen. case was received via speed post only. It was submitted that the aforementioned reasons collectively resulted in the delay in filing the appeal and the delay was not attributable to any negligence or deliberate inaction on the part of the Revenue, but rather to a combination of technical difficulties, administrative challenges and an exceptionally heavy workload. After perusing the same, we are satisfied that the Revenue had a reasonable and sufficient cause and was prevented from filing the instant appeal within the statutory time limit. We, therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: