VIRENDER MALIK,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(4), PUNE

Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee filed a paper book.

1 LdAR submitted that the Assessee is a Doctor in Army presently posted in Field Hospital Sagar, Madhya Pradesh. Ld.AR submitted that Assessee doctor has studied in Armed Forces Medical College-Pune and then joined Army. For the last 21 years, he is serving in Indian Army. He is Radiologist who has done DM(Neuro Radiology). Ld.AR submitted that the nature of Assessee’s profession is such that he does not get time to understand taxation and was dependent on a tax consultant. Ld.AR invited our attention to the Affidavit of the Assessee which is duly notarized wherein, he has submitted that one Mr. Anirban Chakarbarti suggested him to ITA Nos.1809 & 1810/PUN/2025 [A]

Then, Ld.AR submitted that Assessee had filed Original Return of Income on 07/08/2020 declaring Total Income at Rs.31,48,130/-. Ld.AR filed copy of the Original Return. Ld.AR submitted that Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.80C of Rs.1,50,000/- but the AO has not allowed it. Ld.AR invited our attention to Form number 16 issued by Ministry of Defense wherein said Rs.1,50,000/- is shown clearly. (Page 22 of paper book). Ld.AR submitted that Assessee is eligible for deduction of Interest u/s.24 of Rs.60,353/- and hence only Rs.60,353/- deduction should be allowed u/s.24 of the Act. Ld.AR submitted copy of Interest paid certificate issued by The Army Group Insurance Fund.Page 17 of ITA Nos.1809 & 1810/PUN/2025 [A]

Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue has not objected to assessee’s claim.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case the Assessee is a Doctor having qualification MD(radiology), DM (Neuro Radiology). It is an admitted fact that Assessee is serving Indian Army for many years as Doctor. As per the Form Number 16 issued under Rule 31 of Income Tax Rules, Ministry of Defense, Government of India is the Employer of the Assessee.

Ld.AR submitted that the deductions which are appearing in Form No.16 have not been allowed by the AO.

We have verified the Form No.16 which was admittedly filed along with the original return of income, it is noted that total amount of Rs.8,25,728/- was eligible for deduction u/s.80C, 80CCC and 80CCD(1). However, as per Section 80C, the amount needs to be restricted to only Rs.1,50,000/-. Accordingly, in Form No.16 only Rs.1,50,000/- was shown as eligible for deduction u/s.80C of the Act. In these facts, we direct ld.Assessing Officer to allow the ITA Nos.1809 & 1810/PUN/2025 [A]

Ld.DR for the Revenue has not disputed these facts. Accordingly, we direct ld.AO to allow exemption of Rs.63,566/- u/s.10 of the Act as appearing in Form No.16. 9. The Assessing Officer has disallowed assessee’s entire claim of deduction of interest on borrowed capital and made an addition of Rs.2 lakhs to total income. However, ld.AR has admitted that Assessee is eligible for interest u/s.24 of Rs.60,353/-. Ld.AR invited our attention to page no.17 which is an Interest Certificate issued by Army Group Insurance Fund, wherein it has been specifically stated interest of Rs.60,353.23 has been paid by Assessee. The said Certificate is scanned and reproduced here as under :

In this case, Assessee has paid interest of Rs.60,353/- towards housing loan. Accordingly, the said amount is eligible for deduction under section 24 of the Act. Hence, we direct the ld.AO to allow the deduction of Rs.60,353/-. It is also observed that Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s.80TTA of Rs.3,190/-, accordingly, we direct ld.AO to allow the same.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed. 12. This is an appeal against the order u/s.250 of the Act, dated 04.06.2025 emanating from penalty order u/s.270A of the Act, dated 02.03.2023. Ld.Assessing Officer has levied penalty under section 270A(8) r.w.s 270A(9) of the Act, of Rs.5,77,644/-. Ld.AR has relied on the decision of ITAT Pune Bench in the case of Rajendra Shyamkanth Shivrame Vs. ITO in ITA Nos.935 & 936/PUN/2024 for A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 vide order dated 18.02.2025. Hon’ble Judicial Member is signatory to the said order in the case of Rajendra Shyamkanth Shivrame.

The facts of the Assessee’s case are identical to the facts in the case of Rajendra Shyamkanth Shivrame(supra). Therefore, following the binding precedence, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied under section 270A of the Act. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.