TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 987X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both these issues in the concluding paragraph and after going through the last paragraph of the ld. CIT(Appeals)'s order, we do not find any error in it and accordingly we do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue. Jurisdiction of ACIT, Tezpur Circle - Whether CIT(Appeals) is wrong in observing that jurisdiction of the case was with the ACIT, Circle-Tezpur ? - Though with the assistance of ld. D.R., we have gone through the record carefully. The assessee has not placed on record the Notification vide which jurisdictions are being given. What we could gather from the record available before us is that there was certain classification of cases and for better management of the assessments, it was decided that cases of the assessee where income exceeded Rs. 5,00,000/- will be assessed by ACIT, Ward-Tezpur and below this monetary limit would remain with concerned ITO at Lakhimpur. The assessee is trying to demonstrate that last return available in that Notification is to be construed filed later on. He is relying upon the returned income filed in A.Y. 2007-08, which was NIL income. To our mind, it is misleading argument. The return of income ought to be considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier date of hearing. Then, she contended that unconditional apology has been tendered by the assessee and that was accepted by the Bench on 16.06.2022. The hearing was adjourned to 18.08.2022. Ld. Counsel for the assessee again sought adjournment but we did not grant adjournment because it is an appeal of 2010, already twelve years have expired. We heard the appeal ex-parte with the assistance of ld. D.R. and proceed to decided on merits. 4. Before taking up the solitary grievance of the Revenue, we would like to take note of certain facts. The assessee has filed his return of income on 08.10.2004 showing total income at Rs. 6,34,537/- but claimed it exempt under section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act. An assessment order was passed under section 143(3) on 31.03.2006 rejecting the claim of exemption in respect of income arose to the assessee from execution of contract works at Tripura. This order was set aside by the ld. Commissioner by exercising powers under section 263 vide his order dated 31.03.2009. In pursuance of this 263 order, fresh assessment order has been passed on 31.12.2009 under section 143(3) read with section 263. The computation of income in this assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s completed u/s. 144 to the best of the judgment of the AO on the basis of materials on record. Considering the above it is observed that due opportunity was provided to the appellant by the AO before passing the order u/s. 144. Appeal fails on this ground. 7. With regard to the fourth, fifth and sixth grounds of appeal, it is observed that the appellant is a member of Schedule Tribe residing in the state of Arunachal Pradesh. The income of the appellant during the relevant previous year accrued from the states of Arunachal Pradesh and Tripura which are areas specified in section 10(26) of the I T. Act. The Full Bench of Gauhati High Court in its judgment dated 10/12/2009 on the same issue of income exempt from income-tax u/s. 10(26) in VVP(C) No. 727/2009 in the case of Pradeep Kumar Taye and others vs. Union of India and others held: the benefit provided under Sub-section (26) available only to the members of the Scheduled Tribes residing in any areas specified in the said section. In other words, the members of the Scheduled Tribes residing in other parts of the country, other than the one specified under Section 10 Sub-section (26) are not entitled to the benefit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (26) of the Income-tax Act . The appellant is a member of Schedule Tribe as defined in Article 366(25) of the Constitution residing in the state of Arunachal Pradesh. Therefore, following the decision of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court cited above, the income of the appellant accruing or arising from the state of Tripura, a specified area under Section 10 (26), would be exempt under the said section. No material is brought on record by the AO on the capital brought forward and introduction of fresh capital Rs. 1,81,07,565/- that the same has accrued from areas other than the states of Arunachal Pradesh and Tripura. The AO has not found the above capital to have accrued from areas other than the states of Arunachal Pradesh and Tripura. The above income of the appellant is, therefore, exempt u/s. 10(26) of the IT Act. The appeal is allowed on these grounds. 8. In the result appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Niranjan Kouli) Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Guwahati 6. The ld. D.R. was unable to point out any material as to how the issue in dispute is not covered by the Full Bench of Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Taye as refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
