ITO Vs Bhumika Rai (ITAT Kolkata)
ITAT Kolkata held that CIT(A) accepted additional evidence and allowed the relief u/s. 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act without allowing an opportunity of being heard to AO. Therefore, the order of CIT(A) is in contravention of Rule 46A(3) of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Accordingly, appeal of revenue allowed and matter restored back.
Facts- The assessee is engaged in the business of LPG cylinders under the name and style of M/s Nayuma Indane and DTH services. She is an authorized dealer of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and received commission income on DTH services from Dish Infra Services Private Limited in the district of Namchi, Sikkim.
The assessment for AY 2017-18 was re-opened by AO by issuing a notice to the assessee as the assessee had not filed the return of income and the assessee had made several financial transactions during the year. The assessee responded that she was exempted from income tax as per clause (26AAA) of section 10 of the Act. AO examined the reply and required the assessee to furnish proof of residency of Sikkim along with documentary evidence and also to justify with documentary evidence as to how the assessee was eligible for exemption u/s 10(26AAA) of the Act. Since the required details were not filed, the deposits in the bank account of Rs. 8,92,81,690/- were treated as unexplained money and added u/s 69A of the Act while the sum of Rs. 15,08,694/- for purchase of vehicle was added as unexplained deposit u/s 69 of the Act. Further, the commission income of Rs. 11,62,481/-from M/s Dish Infra Services Private Limited on which TDS was deducted was also added to the income of the assessee in absence of any reply to the notice issued and the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act was made at the total income of Rs. 9,19,53,065/-. However, the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 10(26AAA) was denied by AO.
