2025 (7) TMI 1051 - AT - Income Tax

Sikkim resident petrol pump owner gets section 10(26AAA) tax exemption despite incorrect PAN status

Chandra Sales Agency Versus ACIT, Circle-3 (2), Gangtok

The ITAT Kolkata allowed the assessee's appeal for exemption under section 10(26AAA). The AO had rejected the claim and assessed income at 8% of turnover, ... Rejecting the claim of the assessee u/s. 10(26AAA) - AO assessed the income by applying @ 8% on the total turnover - AO denied the exemption on the ground that assessee is a proprietary concern but it is using the PAN of a firm and the same was upheld by CIT(A) - assessee is a sole proprietor who is resident of Sikkim and is engaged in the business of operating a petrol pump - HELD THAT:- As specifically mentioned in the submission of the assessee that the PAN was wrongly allowed in the status of firm, however, the assessee is a proprietary concern. The assessee is in fact a proprietary concern owned by Smt. Menuka Devi Agarwal who settled in Sikkim prior to 1st April, 1975 as is apparent from the evidences filed before us in the form of license and other certificate issued by the Govt. CIT(A) did not consider the issue of assessee being bona fide Sikkim of resident and upheld the order rejecting the claim to exemption u/s. 10(26AAA). In our opinion the order of CIT(A) has been passed without considering the decision of Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim [2023 (1) TMI 583 - SUPREME COURT] held all citizens of India having a domicile in Sikkim on day it merged with India i.e. 26.04.1975 must be covered under Explanation to section 10(26AAA) in order to avail benefit of exemption under section 10(26AAA). A Sikkimese Woman who marries a Non-Sikkimese after 01.04.2008 is also entitled to the benefit of exemption u/s 10(26AAA). Therefore, assessee is apparently entitled to the exemption of income u/s. 10(26AAA) of the Act even in respect of petrol pump of which the assessee is a proprietor. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. The core legal questions considered in this appeal are:1. Whether the income of a proprietary concern owned by a bona fide resident of Sikkim is exempt under section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Whether the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were correct in rejecting the exemption claim under section 10(26AAA) on the ground that the assessee, though a proprietorship, was using the PAN of a firm.3. The applicability and interpretation of the Supreme Court decision in Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India with respect to exemption under section 10(26AAA).4. The validity of the assessment framed under section 144 of the Act, including the addition of income estimated @ 8% on turnover and unexplained cash deposits treated as income under section 69A and penalty proceedings under section 271AAC.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Entitlement to exemption under section 10(26AAA) for income of a proprietary concern owned by a bona fide resident of SikkimThe legal framework revolves around section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, which exempts income arising or accruing to a Sikkimese resident. The provision was inserted retrospectively from AY 1981 by the Finance Act, 2018. The key question was whether the income of the proprietary concern owned by the assessee, a bona fide resident of Sikkim, qualifies for this exemption.The Court noted that the assessee is a sole proprietor operating a petrol pump in Sikkim and is a bona fide resident settled in Sikkim prior to 1 April 1975, as evidenced by certificates from competent authorities. The assessee's proprietorship status was undisputed, although the PAN used was that of a firm, which was admitted to be an error.The Assessing Officer denied exemption on the ground that the assessee was using a firm's PAN and thus could not claim exemption under section 10(26AAA). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this view without addressing the residency and proprietorship facts adequately.The Tribunal relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim v. Union of India, which clarified that all individuals domiciled in Sikkim on the date of merger with India (26 April 1975) are entitled to exemption under section 10(26AAA). The Supreme Court struck down discriminatory provisions denying exemption to certain categories, including Sikkimese women marrying non-Sikkimese men after 1 April 2008, on grounds of arbitrariness and violation of equality.Applying this precedent, the Tribunal held that the assessee, being a bona fide resident and proprietor, is entitled to exemption under section 10(26AAA) irrespective of the PAN irregularity. The proprietary nature of the business and the residency status were determinative, not the PAN status.Issue 2: Validity of additions and assessment under section 144, including treatment of unexplained cash depositsThe Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under section 144 due to non-filing of return and substantial cash deposits during the demonetization period, treating the deposits as unexplained under section 69A and imposing penalty under section 271AAC. Income was estimated at 8% of turnover based on VAT returns, and unexplained credits were added to income.The Tribunal noted that the assessment was framed without compliance from the assessee and was initiated on suspicion of undisclosed income. However, since the exemption under section 10(26AAA) applies, the income derived from the business is exempt and cannot be treated as taxable income.The Tribunal did not explicitly discuss the penalty or unexplained money provisions in detail, but by allowing exemption on the principal income, it effectively negated the basis for additions under sections 69A and 271AAC, as the income is not taxable.Issue 3: Interpretation of Supreme Court ruling in Association of Old Settlers of SikkimThe Supreme Court's ruling clarified the scope of section 10(26AAA) exemption, emphasizing that:All persons domiciled in Sikkim as of 26 April 1975 are entitled to exemption.Discrimination against Sikkimese women marrying non-Sikkimese men after 1 April 2008 is unconstitutional.The exemption applies broadly to income accruing to such residents.The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in ignoring this binding precedent and failing to apply it to the facts of the case. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's membership in the Association of Old Settlers and the documentary evidence of residency satisfy the criteria for exemption.Treatment of competing argumentsThe Revenue's argument centered on the PAN irregularity and non-compliance with filing requirements, justifying denial of exemption and imposition of additions. The assessee argued bona fide residency, proprietorship status, and reliance on Supreme Court precedent.The Tribunal favored the assessee's arguments, finding the PAN issue to be a procedural irregularity not affecting substantive rights to exemption. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's reliance on the assessment under section 144 without considering the exemption claim.ConclusionsThe Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and directed the Assessing Officer to allow exemption under section 10(26AAA) in respect of the income of the proprietary petrol pump business. The appeal was allowed accordingly.Significant HoldingsThe Tribunal preserved the following crucial legal reasoning from the Supreme Court decision:'All citizens of India having a domicile in Sikkim on day it merged with India i.e. 26.04.1975 must be covered under Explanation to section 10(26AAA) in order to avail benefit of exemption under section 10(26AAA).''A Sikkimese Woman who marries a Non-Sikkimese after 01.04.2008 is also entitled to the benefit of exemption u/s 10(26AAA).'The core principles established include:The exemption under section 10(26AAA) is applicable to income of individuals domiciled in Sikkim prior to 26 April 1975, including income from proprietary businesses.Procedural irregularities such as use of an incorrect PAN do not negate substantive rights to exemption.Discriminatory provisions denying exemption based on gender or marital status are unconstitutional.Assessment under section 144 must consider substantive exemptions and cannot arbitrarily estimate income ignoring such exemptions.Final determinations:The assessee's income from the proprietorship petrol pump business is exempt under section 10(26AAA).The additions made on estimated income and unexplained cash deposits are not sustainable in view of the exemption.The orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) are set aside to the extent they deny exemption and make additions.The appeal is allowed.