TSERING PHUNCHOK,LEH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SRINAGAR, SRINAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 205/ASR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 November 2025AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, affirming that the assessee's exemption claim under Section 10(26) and other documentary evidence necessitate thorough examination by the Assessing Officer. Given the initial ex-parte assessment, the remand for fresh assessment was deemed legally justified to ensure a fair and proper evaluation of the case as per provisions of law.

What were the facts?

The assessee, claiming to be a Scheduled Tribe member from Ladakh, sought exemption u/s 10(26). Reassessment proceedings were initiated based on flagged financial transactions and lack of filed return, leading to an ex-parte assessment of Rs. 37.77 crores for various incomes. The CIT(A) set aside this ex-parte order, remanding the matter to the AO for fresh assessment to properly consider documentary evidence for the exemption claim and notice service.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in setting aside an ex-parte assessment and remanding the matter for fresh assessment to verify the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(26) and address the non-receipt of statutory notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 10(26),Section 251(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA

For Appellant: Adv. :
Hearing: 23.09.2025Pronounced: 10.11.2025

ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 10.01.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the Assessment Unit, ITD u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, 1961 dated 19.02.2024. u/s 148 of the Act 61, and the main objection of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) has remanded the matter back to the AO without adjudication considering the above issue regarding non receipt of statutory notice by the assessee.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has claimed to be a member of the Scheduled Tribe as defined in clause (25) of article 366 of the Constitution and residing in the Ladakh region of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and his income is claimed to be exempted u/s 10(26) of the Act 61.

4.

On the basis of flagged information from DIT (systems) CBDT, in accordance with risk management strategy, that the assessee has indulged in various financial transactions, and in absence of any return on record, reassessment proceedings were initiated vide notice u/s 148 dated 4th April, 2022, (as per procedure).

5.

In absence of any response to various notices issued by the department in course of assessment proceedings, the assessment was completed ex-parte u/s 147/ 144 rws 144B of the Act, on a total income of Rs. 37.77 crores, (which included unexplained cash deposits in J & K Bank, and in State Bank of India, and profits derived from execution of contract works, with Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation, plus income from bank interest and other unexplained investments). as per provisions of 251(1)(a) of the Act , for fresh assessment ( the original order being passed u/s 144 ) , after considering all documentary evidences now filed relating to the claim of exemption u/s 10(26) of the Act 61, and regarding service of notice it is observed by the CIT(A) in para 6.1 of his order , that notices issued dated 12/01/2024 and 01/02/2024 has been responded to by the assessee .

7.

The Ld. DR relied on the order of the first appellate authority.

8.

We are of the opinion that the claim of the exemption u/s 10(26) of the Act 61, needs to be examined by the AO in relation to all documentary evidences to be produced and since the order is passed ex-parte u/s 144, the Ld. first appellate authority is perfectly justified in setting aside the matter for fresh assessment as per provisions of law, and we uphold the said order.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed being infructuous.

Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 10.11.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to:

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →