MRS. PRAVATI SAHOO,NARANPUR, KEONJHARGARH vs. ITO, WARD KEONJHAR, KEONJHAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 13/CTK/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 March 2024AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for readjudication after examining the evidence of premium payments. The legal grounds raised by the assessee were left open.

What were the facts?

The assessee surrendered a pension policy before maturity, and the entire sum received was treated as income. The assessee claimed that premiums were paid for earlier assessment years and sought an opportunity to produce evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the surrender of a pension policy before maturity, where premiums were paid in earlier years, can be taxed as income from other sources without proper examination of evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Hearing: 13/03/2024Pronounced: 13/03/2024

O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 29.11.2023, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1058321138(1) for the assessment year 2014-2015.

2.

Shri Bivash Ranjan Panda, Advocate appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee had made payment for pension policy premium for the earlier years being AYs.2009- 10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 and had also claimed the rebate u/s.80C of the Act. The assessee had surrendered the pension plan policy before normal date of maturity. Consequently, the AO had treated the entire sum of Rs.31,32,699/- as income from other sources. It was further submitted that before the ld. CIT(A), the claim was specifically explained but the ld. CIT(A) took the stand that the proof in respect of premium having paid 2 over a period of 3 years was not produced. It was the submission that if one opportunity is granted, the assessee will be able to produce the evidence before the AO.

4.

In reply, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) should be upheld.

5.

I have considered the rival submissions. The assessee has now placed before me proof representing the premium payment on 17.11.2009, 09.11.2010 & 30.11.2011. These are for the amounts of Rs.12,00,000/-, Rs.9,00,000/- & Rs.9,00,000/-, respectively. As the assessee does possess the receipts of the same, in the interest of justice, the issue is restored to the file of AO for readjudication and examination of the evidences after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

6.

I am not adjudicating the legal ground as raised by the assessee and the same is left open as the issue has been restored to the file of AO for readjudication on merits.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 13/03/2024. (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 13/03/2024 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S.

More judgments on Section 80C

All 658 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →