DOCTOR BAWITLUNG ZOTHANKIMA,AIZAWL vs. DCIT, SILCHAR

ITA 212/GTY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 August 2025AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)7 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged CIT(A)'s power to enhance income but noted the lack of a clear finding on the territorial origin of the pharmacy business receipts. It held that if income is exempt under Section 10(26), maintaining books of account might not be required, but the assessee's GST filings indicate records exist. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding the Rs. 12,56,899/- addition and remanded the issue back to the AO to examine whether the pharmacy business receipts arose from the specified geographical territory, which would qualify for Section 10(26) exemption.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a doctor and Scheduled Tribe member, claimed income exemption under Section 10(26) of the IT Act. During scrutiny, the AO added Rs. 23,05,974/- as unexplained credit under Section 68. The CIT(A) further enhanced income by Rs. 12,56,899/- under Section 69A, treating transfers from the assessee's son's pharmacy business as unexplained money without conclusively determining if the income originated from the specified geographical territory for Section 10(26) exemption.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) validly enhanced the assessee's income by treating transfers from a son's pharmacy business as unexplained money under Section 69A. 2. Whether the receipts from the son's pharmacy business are exempt under Section 10(26) of the IT Act, given the assessee's Scheduled Tribe status and the territorial origin of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 10(26),Section 68,Section 69A,Section 251,Section 251(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, GUWAHATI

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The present appeal emanates from the order under Section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 27.08.2024. 2.1 In this case, the assessee is a doctor by profession and derives income from salary, consultancy in a hospital and interest income. The assessee is a member of Scheduled Tribe as defined in Article 366(25) of the

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 10(26)

All 148 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(26) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →