AJOY KUMAR GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, DURGAPUR

“1. That the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in law as well as on the fact and in the circumstances to upheld the order of the assessing officer of disallowing Rs. 36,892u/s 80C of the Act.

That the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in law as well as on the fact and in the circumstances to upheld the order of the assessing officer of denying the deduction u/s 80TTA of Rs.10,000 while making the addition of Rs 31,017.

Ground No.1 – The assessee vide Ground No.1 has agitated the action of the lower authorities in not allowing the deduction of Rs.36,892/- u/s 80C of Act.

The case of the assessee is that the assessee has filed his return u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act and had claimed deduction of Rs.150000/- u/s 80C of the Act. Though the Assessing Officer allowed the deduction of Rs.103,821/- in respect of contribution towards CPF VPF, Pension fund etc. However, the Assessing Officer denied the deduction of the remaining amount of Rs.36,892/- in respect of allowing insurance premium paid of Rs.47600/-. The ld. counsel has submitted that initially the assessee did not file the insurance premium receipts because the aforesaid payment was reflected in the salary certificate given by the Assessment year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Ajoy Kumar Ghosh employer. However, the assessee later on filed the insurance premium receipts but the same have not been considered by the lower authorities.

We note that the claim raised by the assessee is a factual claim which can be verified by the Assessing Officer. We, therefore, restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the aforesaid claim of deduction of the assessee and allow the same, if so permissible, as per law. 6. Ground No.2 – The assessee vide Ground No.2 has claimed that in the assessment carried out u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer has made addition of interest income but has denied the deduction u/s 80TTA of the Act of Rs.10,000/-. 7. The aforesaid claim of the assessee being factual and is also verifiable by the Assessing Officer. This issue is also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the aforesaid claim and allow the same, if so permissible, as per law. 8. Ground No.3 – Vide Ground No.3, the assessee has raised the issue that the cooking gas subsidy of Rs.795/- was not assessable as income of the assessee as the assessee is an individual and as per the CBDT Circular of 2015 r.w.s. 2(44) and 145(2) of the Act, the same cannot be treated as income of an individual. This issue is also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee and decide this issue after considering the submissions of the assessee. This appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.