9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rong objection against the submission of the assessee. The entire addition was made on the basis of wrong assumption of fact by the Ld.AO. Accordingly, we delete the addition. Assessee appeal allowed. - Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member And Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri J.P. Bairagra Ms. Rupa Nanda For the Respondent : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR.) ORDER PER BENCH: Both the appeals of the assessee are preferred against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[for brevity, Ld.CIT(A) ] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ), for Assessment Year 2012-13 2013-14, both are passed on dated 22.03.2024. The impugned orders are emanated from the order of the ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -22(2), Mumbai(in short, the A.O. ), order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, date of order dated 21/12/2019. 2. In the outset, both the appeals have same nature of facts and common issues, ITA No.1908/Mum/2024 is taken as lead case. ITA 1908/Mum/2024 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of assessment u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hould be allowed as per the provision of section 57(iii). Accordingly, balance amount of Rs. 5,24,428/- will be taxable. 9. The Ld. CIT further erred in not holding that ULIP Market Plus-l(Plan no.181) policy is neither a life insurance policy u/s 10(10D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and nor pension policy u/s 10(10A) and it is an investment cum insurance instrument issued by LIC. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding in the order that during the course of hearing of the VC, the authorized representative assured particulars of not claiming deduction u/s 80C in respect of premium paid on life pension policy will be furnished immediately after the VC. However, the appellant has not furnished any particulars to this effect after the hearing of the VC. 11. The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in not fulfilling his findings during the course of the VC that this is simple case and he understood that and why we have opted for the VC. 3.1 The assessee has also sought to raise the following additional ground of appeal:- The assessment is reopened after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year on 29/03/2019. In the reasons for reopening for assessment there is no mention of failure on pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein the number of units allotted at the NAV of the purchase date and the purchase amount are mentioned. Similarly, at the time of surrender, the assessee has received a redemption letter stating the NAV of unit at the time of surrender is multiplied by the number of units held and amount of surrender value is arrived. 4) The assessee has purchased the LIC ULIP market plus - I ( plan no. 181) policy during the FY 2007-08. This policy is purchased under the plan no. 181 of LIC wherein, the lock in period for surrender of policy was 3 years. 5) The Learned assessing officer has considered the lock in period as 5 years as per the revised guidelines issued by IRDA in the year 2010. The AQ has failed to appreciate the fact that the policy is purchased by the assessee before the revised guidelines issued by the lRDA i.e. for the assessee lock in period for the ULIP market plus - I ( plan no. 181) policy is 3 years only instead of 5 years. 6) The assessee had duly responded to the notice dated 18-11-2019 and 3-l1-2019 vide letter dated 05-12-2019. The assessee has clearly stated at point no. 11 of letter dated 05-12-2019 that the assessee had taken ULIP market plus - I ( plan no. 181) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly and truly all material facts necessary for assessment for the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2012-13. 8. The Ld.DR argued vehemently and relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. The relevant para of the appeal order (paragraphs 6.2.5 and 6.2.6 are reproduced below:- 6.2.5 The submission of the appellant is considered carefully. The appellant has not waited till the maturity and has surrendered the policy before the lock in period to claim any exemption u/s 10(100) of the IT Act. The appellant also submitted that he has not claimed any exemption u/s 10(10D) as the proceeds are from surrender but not on maturity. The appellant has availed the benefit of 80C on the premium paid and the exemption if any u/s 10(100) is available only on maturity. However, in the instant case the appellant has claimed deduction u/s 80C on the premium paid in earlier years and has also surrendered the policy before the lock-in period and thus not eligible for claiming any deduction or exemption on the consideration received. 6.2.6 Further, during the course of the hearing on video conferencing, the appellant claimed that he had not claimed deduction u/s. 80C in respect of the premium ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
