ERNEST MAWRIE,SHILLONG vs. ITO W-1 SHILLONG, SHILLONG

PDF

ITA 166/GTY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 March 2025AY 2015-16Bench: us, the Ld. AR stated that the impugned orders were based on incorrect assumptions of fact since the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead on the presumption that the assessee should have conclusively proven that he was covered under Section 10(26) of the Act. It has been averred that documentary evidence presented for supporting the claim under Section 10(26) of the Act was not considered at all. 2.2 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee did not file income tax returns, leading the Assessing Officer (AO) to pass ex parte orders under Section 144 and assess income on an estimated basis, considering bank deposits. The assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act was not substantiated, and the CIT(A) upheld the AO's orders without considering the documentary evidence provided.

Held

The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for a fresh assessment. The AO is directed to examine whether the assessee is a person of a notified tribe and if their income has a direct nexus with a specified geographical territory, considering all relevant documents.

Key Issues

Whether the assessee's income is exempt under Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, requiring verification of tribal status and the income's nexus with a specified geographical territory, and if the lower authorities properly considered the evidence for this claim.

Sections Cited

250, 144, 10(26)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. These are a batch of two appeals pertaining to the Assessment Year, 2015-16 [ Assessment Year 2016-17 [ITA No. 167/Gty/2024], of the same assessee. These two appeals emanate from order dated 10.06.2024 [ 14.06.2024 [ITA No. 167/Gty/2024]. Both orders have been passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”).

1.1 Admittedly, for both of the years, the Ld. AO passed exparte orders under Section 144 of the Act in light of the facts that the assessee did not & 167/GTY/2024 Ernest Mawrie, Shillong file any return of income and there was no explanation regarding high value deposits in the bank accounts. Thereafter, the Ld. AO is seen to have assessed the income on estimate basis considering the deposits made in the bank account.

1.2 These matters were carried in first appeal where also the assessee could not succeed on the ground that the claim for exemption under Section 10(26) of the Act could not be substantiated fully since it was not conclusively established that the receipts seen in the bank account were arising from sources in the specified geographical areas. For this purpose, the Ld. CIT(A) has not taken cognizance of purported evidences filed for explaining the various sources of income.

Further, aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present two appeals with very lengthy and argumentative grounds of appeal. For the sake of brevity, it needs to be mentioned that the impugned orders have been assailed for not considering that the assessee was covered under Section 10(26) of the Act and all of the impugned receipts had to be evaluated in that light.

2.1 Before us, the Ld. AR stated that the impugned orders were based on incorrect assumptions of fact since the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ahead on the presumption that the assessee should have conclusively proven that he was covered under Section 10(26) of the Act. It has been averred that documentary evidence presented for supporting the claim under Section 10(26) of the Act was not considered at all.

2.2 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below.