2012 (10) TMI 85 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of surplus from sale of ULIP Assessee purchased policy that was a unit linked insurance policy In these kind of policy small portion of the investment goes towards providing the life cover and the residual portion is invested in a stocks or bonds - Assessee claims that surplus amount receive on maturity is exempt u/s 10(10D) - AO treat the entire receipts as income under head income from other sources Held that - As major portion is invested in mutual funds therefore, surplus on maturity of the policy should be treated as capital gain. AO has directed to take the sale consideration of units as the amount received on account of maturity of the policy and the cost of investment as the amount invested by assessee during the span of years and accordingly work out the long term capital gain & tax. Therefore, appeal partly allowed.

Issues involved:

1. Whether the sale consideration of the units of an insurance policy should be treated as the amount received on account of maturity of the policy.
2. Whether the cost of investment should be considered as the amount invested by the assessee.
3. Determination of the taxability of the proceeds from the surrender of the policy under the relevant sections of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise detailed analysis:

1. Sale consideration of the units of an insurance policy:

The Revenue contested the treatment of the sale consideration of the units of an insurance policy as the amount received on account of maturity of the policy. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) held that the investment made by the assessee in "ICICI Pru. Life" was an insurance policy and not a mutual fund. Consequently, the A.O. concluded that the assessee had wrongly claimed exemption under section 10(35) of the Income Tax Act on the receipts from surrender/maturity of the policy. The A.O. further noted that the assessee was entitled to claim exemption under section 10(10D) of the Act but had violated the provisions of section 10(10D)(c), making the exemption inapplicable. The A.O. added Rs. 32,74,492.91 to the taxable income under the head "income from other sources."

2. Cost of investment:

The assessee argued that the premium paid should be exempt from taxation and that the investment was intended for capital gains under a mutual fund, not an insurance policy. The assessee claimed that the exemption under section 10(10D) was not applicable as the policy did not meet the required conditions. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] considered the policy as a unit-linked insurance plan where the major portion was invested in mutual funds. The CIT(A) directed that the sale consideration of units should be treated as the amount received on maturity and the cost of investment as the amount invested by the assessee (Rs. 18,00,000).

3. Taxability of the proceeds:

The CIT(A) found that the policy was a unit-linked insurance policy, where a small portion of the premium provided life cover and the residual portion was invested in funds. The CIT(A) noted that the surplus amount received on maturity should be treated as capital gain. Since no security transaction tax was deducted, the benefit of indexation was available. The CIT(A) concluded that the surplus would be treated as long-term capital gain, directing the A.O. to calculate the tax payable accordingly.

Conclusion:

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the order of the CIT(A), agreeing that the CIT(A) had properly appreciated the facts and passed a well-reasoned order. The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, maintaining that the sale consideration should be treated as the amount received on maturity and the cost of investment as the amount invested by the assessee. The surplus was to be treated as long-term capital gain, and the tax payable was to be calculated accordingly.

← Previous Next →