9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessment u/s 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. It is submitted that reopening is on the basis of incorrect details, facts and data regarding interest income on account of which no addition made in the reassessment order. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the grounds that assessment was reopened after four years without the sanction from PCIT-22 u/s 151 of Income Tax Act. 1961 as no such sanction was provided inspite of reminders. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in confirming the addition on account of surrender of ULIP Market Plus-1 (plan no. 181) policy at Rs. 25,24,428/-. 4. The Ld. CIT further erred in not following the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata Bench 'SMC' in case of the Bishista Bagchi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, [2022] 138 taxmann.com 419 which is directly on this issue. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) further erred in disallowing Long Term Capital Loss of Rs. 3,24,937 claimed on account of surrender of ULIP market plus-l(plan no. 181) policy. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) wrongly mentioned in Para 6.2.6 of order that during the VC, the appellant has agreed to furnish details that the amount paid for purchasing the ULIP Market Plus-1 (plan no. 181) policy has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment there is no mention of failure on part of the appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment," 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessment was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act on dated 29/03/2019. The re-assessment was completed on 21/122019 determining total income at Rs. 1,32,560,980/-interalia making addition of Rs. 25,24,428/- on account of maturity of policy "ULIP Market Plus-1". The assessee declared the maturity in return of income and treated it as long-term capital loss amount to Rs. 3,24,937/-. But the ld. AO denied the claim of assessee and added back entire amount of Rs 25,24,428/- in assumption that amount received on pre-maturity. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed the present appeal before us. 5. The Ld.AR argued and filed the written submission which is kept in record. The ld. AR placed that under wrong assumption, the addition was made. The Ld.AR in written submission placed that the assessee invested in "LIC ULIP Market Plus-1 (Plan 181)" policy during the financial years 2007-08. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12-2019 that the assessee had taken ULIP market plus - I ( plan no. 181) policy which is not in nature of life insurance but, is an investment policy, as LIC further invests this amount . in listed equity shares." 6. The Ld.AR further argued that revenue has made a wrong assumption that claim once made under section 10(10A) or section 10(10D), whereas the assessee has never made such claim of exemption during the filing of return of income. This is purely in the nature of gain of the assessee which the assessee may declare as capital gain or Income from other sources. Accordingly, assessee claimed the income as capital gain in the return of income and booked capital loss after due calculation. 7. The Ld.AR further invited our attention in recorded reasons related to notice issued under section 148 (APB page 21), which reads as follows:- "3.1. Further with regard to the surrender value of Rs. 25,24,428/-, the assessee-;. submitted that this value has been offered for tax in the AY 2012-13 as Long Term Capital Gain / Loss, being the year In which the policy was surrendered. However on perusal of return filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13, it is gathered that the assessee has off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant claimed that he had not claimed deduction u/s. 80C in respect of the premium paid towards LIC Pension Plan but claimed on account of payment made towards provident fund and relevant particulars would be furnished immediately after the video conference. However, the appellant has not furnished any particulars regarding his claim that no deduction u/s 80C was claimed on the premium paid in earlier years. The appellant's Authorised Representative further claimed that the LIC Market Plus-1 lock-in period was changed from 3 years to 5 years and thus as the policy was purchased before the guidelines, the maturity should be reckoned for 3 years. However, it is noticed that the revised rules are applicable from 01/09/2010 and the appellant was aware of the changes in the rules. The appellant is thus not eligible to claim any benefit of tax on the surrender of policy before the mandatory lock-in period. Thus, as the appellant was unable to show that no deduction under Section 80C was claimed in the earlier years and as the appellant has surrendered the policy before the lock-in period, the entire consideration received needs to be charged to tax as "Income from Other Source ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
