SMT. SANGITA JHUNJHUNWALA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-29(4), KOLKATA

आदेश /O R D E R The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 05-09-2019 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’]. 2. The assessee in this case has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1.That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) hereinafter referred to as Ld. CIT(A) has erred by partly confirming the impugned order passed by the Ld. Assessing Authority.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by only allowing the partial amount of rent and considering the net amount of payment after adjustment of advance whereas the Ld. Appellate Authority has failed to consider the actual payable amount.

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by confirming the addition of Rs. 53,676/-. In this regard your petitioner submits that she had not claimed any A.Y 2013-14 Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala Page 2 expenditure against the exempt income. Moreover, your petitioner has only dividend of Rs. 802/- as exempt income only.

4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred by confirming the addition of Rs. 1,10,023/- by disallowing the claim of your petitioner u/s. 80C & 80D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 despite production of all the supportive documents.

5. That the order of Ld. CIT(A) partially confirming order of the Ld. AO is whimsical, capricious and most prejudicial one.

6. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard before confirming the order of assessment passed by Ld. AO which is most arbitrary and thus violates the principle of natural justice.

7. That the order of Ld.AO & by Ld. CIT(A) both are bad on points of law as well as on facts as such void under the law.

8. That your petitioner craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify,substitute, withdraw any of the ground or grounds of this appeal petition on or before or at the time of hearing.

2. A perusal of above grounds of appeal reveals that in this appeal the assessee has contested the two issues. First issue is the disallowance out of expenditure claimed on rent paid. The second issue is regarding the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80C & 80D of the Income Tax Act, 1963 ( in short, the ‘ Act’ ).

3. As far as the first issue is relating to disallowance in respect of expenditure claimed on account of rent payment is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee though has claimed rent expenditure for 12 months, but, however, she produced bills/receipts only for 8 months. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee had produced also the receipts of rent payment for other 4 months, but the lower authorities have failed to consider the same. Similarly, in relation to claim of deduction u/s. 80C/80D, Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee had paid medical insurance premium. That receipt was produced before the lower authorities, which has been overlooked by the lower authorities.

4. Since the assessee’s claim is based on evidences/receipts, the same can be well verified by the Ld. Assessing Officer ( in short, the ‘ Ld. AO’). In view of the above, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. AO with the direction that he will consider the evidences/receipts etc. if any, filed by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue afresh as per law. Needless to say that Ld.AO will provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to present her case.