MADHAV VINAYAK DHADPHALE,PUNE vs. DCIT, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 May 2024AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had not properly addressed the assessee's submissions regarding deductions claimed under Section 80CCC and Section 80C. Consequently, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns assessment year 2014-15, arising from reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 3,75,500/- which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee contested the reopening and the addition, arguing that the conditions for reopening were not met and the amounts were not taxable.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid and whether the additions made under Section 80CCC(2) and Section 80C were justified based on the assessee's claims and the facts presented.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(1),Section 148,Section 133(6),Section 80CCC(2),Section 80C,Section 149

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 22.04.2024Pronounced: 17.05.2024

Date of Hearing : 22.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17.05.2024 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1057931314(1), dated 14.11.2023, in proceedings u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

“On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law –

1.

The learned CIT-A erred in upholding the reopening and confirming the addition of Rs.3,75,500/- to the income of 2 ITA.No.4/PUN./2024 the appellant made by the AO in the order of reassessment passed u/s 147 read with 144B of the Act.

2. The learned CIT-A erred in not appreciating that even where proceedings under Section 147 were sought to be taken with reference to an intimation framed earlier under Section 143(1), the ingredient of Section 147 viz. “reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment”, had to be fulfilled as held by Honourable Supreme Court in Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P). Ltd. [2007] 291 1TR 500 and that the said ingredient did not exist in the appellant’s case.

3.

The learned CIT-A failed to appreciate that the receipt of information as stated by the AO in the notice issued u/s 143 (2) read with Section 148 of the Act regarding premature of surrender of LIC policy by the assessee Madhav Vinayak Dhadphale during the TY 2013-14 relevant to AY 2014-15 received from ITO(I & CI-2), Pune vide letter dated 05.02.2019 did not constitute information as contemplated under the provisions of Section 148 of the Act and there was no reason to believe or that the alleged reason to believe was not at all germane or relevant for the formation of the belief that appellant’s income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.

4. The learned CIT-A failed to appreciate that the aforesaid so called information/reason had nothing to do with the 3 ITA.No.4/PUN./2024 subsequent submission made by the appellant in response to notice u/s 133 (6) regarding the claim for deduction of insurance premiums made under distinct different insurance policy in the previous years 2011-12 to 2013-

14.

5. The learned CIT-A erred in not appreciating the fact that the single premium of Rs.10 lakhs paid by the appellant in the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2011-12 was for investment in Market Plus plan of Life Insurance Corporation (Policy number 957579673) for receiving pension from the fund and the said amount was never claimed as deduction in the computation of total income for the said A.Y. 2011-12 and therefore the entire amount standing to the credit of fund Rs.10,75,500/- (including surplus Rs.75,500) withdrawn in the previous year relevant to the A.Y. 2014-15 before the expiry of five years was not at all taxable in the hands of the appellant and the provisions of Section 80CCC(2) of the Act were not at all attracted in such fact situation.

6.

The learned CIT-A further erred in not appreciating the fact that in any event the surplus amount Rs.75,500/- received by the appellant in A.Y. 2014-15 was well below the limit of Rs. 1 lakh prescribed and applicable at then point intime in respect of escapement income chargeable to tax as laid down in Section 149 for the purpose of issuing

4 ITA.No.4/PUN./2024 notice u/s 148 for reopening the assessment and the notice u/s 148 violated the provisions of law.

7.

The learned CIT-A failed to appreciate that claim for deduction of life insurance premiums totalling to Rs.3 lakhs consisting of Rs.1 lakh in each of the three previous years 2011-12 to 2013-14 paid by the appellant under a different and distinct insurance policy were not part of or related to investment of Rs.10 lakhs in pension fund policy of LIC and the disallowance of legitimate claim of Rs.3,00,000/- only led to dilation of the amounts so as to somehow reach the threshold of Rs.1 lakh stipulated in Section 149.

8.

It is prayed that the entire amount of disallowance of Rs.3,75,500/- be deleted.

Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter, modify or delete from the above grounds of appeal.”

3. Learned counsel is fair enough in only pressing for the assessee’s foregoing substantive grounds on merits regarding the twin disallowance(s) herein i.e., sec.80CCC(2) and 80C of the Act, involving varying sums, respectively. His first vehement submission is that neither the assessee had been allowed the impugned former deduction u/sec.80CCC(1) so as to result in the impugned disallowance(s) under sub-

5 ITA.No.4/PUN./2024 sec.2 thereof nor had he ever claimed any relief qua the latter sum hereinabove.

4.

Learned DR could hardly rebut the fact that these clinching aspects have nowhere been satisfied either in the assessment order or in the lower appellate discussion. Faced with this situation, I restore the instant issue(s) back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law, subject to the rider that it is the assessee’s sole risk and responsibility to prove the case in consequential proceedings.

Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 17.05.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →