IGNATIUS MATHEW KALAPURAKKAL,KOLLAM vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that both lower authorities rightly disallowed the exemption claim due to the assessee's failure to produce relevant details. The appeal was decided ex parte as the assessee did not appear.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed an exemption under Section 10(10D) of the Income-tax Act for Rs. 38,09,506. The assessee failed to produce the life insurance policy or its photocopy when requested by the Assessing Officer, even after a remand report was sought.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the validity of the Section 10(10D) exemption claim in the absence of supporting documentation for the life insurance policy.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
Appellant by : --- None--- Respondent by : Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 Date of Hearing : 14.08.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : This assessee’s appeal in 2014-2015 arises out of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/DRP/M/144C(5)/2023- 24/1058266942(1) dated 28.11.2023, in proceedings u/s.144C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act” hereinafter.
Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte.
Learned CIT-DR vehemently submits at the outset that both the lower authorities have rightly disallowed the assessee’s sec.10(10D) exemption claim of Rs.38,09,506 made in the lower proceedings. He next invited our attention that . Sri.Ignatius Mathew Kalapurakkal. the DRP’s detailed discussions in its directions dated 28.11.2023 that even a remand report was sought from the Assessing Officer wherein the assessee himself expressed his inability to get even photocopy of the life insurance policy concerned. That being the case, as evidenced from the appeal file before us, we are of the considered view that both the lower authorities have decided instant appeal against the assessee on account of his failure to produce all the relevant details. Rejected accordingly.
More judgments on Section 10(10D)
- Saurabh Bansal, Ludhiana vs Jao ITO Ward 6(1), LudhianaITA 673/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Apr 2026AY 2017-18
- Penninti Vivekananda Rao, Hyderabad vs ADIT (Int Taxn)-2, HyderabadITA 1494/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
- Triveni Devi Bhutra, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer Ward 61(4), KolkataITA 965/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
- Anupama Agarwal, Delhi vs DCIT 61.1, DelhiITA 5676/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
- Yamini Arjan Bharwani, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 30(1), KolkataITA 800/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026