MIKOLAS LYNGDOH,EAST JAINTIA HILLS DISTRICT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 77/GTY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 January 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI RAKESH MISHRA (Accountant Member)6 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, with no objection from the Departmental Representative, set aside the orders of both the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. The matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment (de novo) to provide the assessee a proper opportunity to present evidence regarding the Section 10(26) exemption claim, which had not been submitted to the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mikolas Lyngdoh, appealed against a reassessment order for AY 2017-18, claiming exemption under Section 10(26) as a Scheduled Tribe residing in Meghalaya's Sixth Schedule area, with income derived from coal, broomsticks, and agricultural produce within the same region. A significant cash deposit was treated as unexplained money under Section 69A by the authorities. The assessee did not appear before the lower authorities, leading to ex-parte orders.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte reassessment proceedings were valid; whether the assessee's income from tribal areas is exempt under Section 10(26); and whether the cash deposit constitutes unexplained money under Section 69A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 10(26),Section 69A,Section 252

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GUWAHATI BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SRI MANOMOHAN DAS & SRI RAKESH MISHRA

order

: January 17th, 2025 ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →