TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 642
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce dated 29.3.2018 issued to the petitioner by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking to reopen the assessment in respect of assessment year 2013-14. In the said notice it was stated by the Assessing Officer that he had reasons to believe that income in the hands of the petitioner chargeable to tax for the year under consideration had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Also challenged is order dated 16.10.2018 passed by the respondent Assessing Officer whereby he disposed of the objections of the petitioner against reassessment, rejecting the same. 3. Noticing the basic facts, the petitioner filed his return of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner- assessee made investment of Rs.8,10,000/- each dated 28.3.2006, 5.4.2007 and 25.12.2012 and Rs.24,30,000/- on 16.10.2012 totaling Rs.48,60,000/- in the pension policy of the Bajaj Alliance. The assessee surrendered the same, it was stated, for the value of Rs.59,89,740/- on 21.11.2012 much before the maturity date of the policy, which was 28.3.2015. Thus the gain of Rs.11,29,740/- received by the assessee on account of premature of the policy was required to be offered for taxation in the assessment year 2013-14 as per the provisions of Section 80CCC (2), however in the return filed for the year 2013-14 such amount was not offered for taxation. 3.3 While on such basis the reassessment was sought to be acted upon, it was further stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered the gain of Rs.11,29,740/- earned out of premature surrender of policy. According to the Assessment Officer, the income had escaped to the said extent. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner assailing the impugned notice and the order of rejection of objections submitted that despite the information and necessary clarification provided to the Assessing Officer, the same were not considered. What learned advocate for the petitioner highlighted was that the assessee never claimed relief under Section 80CCC (1) of the Act, therefore question of applicability of Section 80CCC (2) of the Act could not arise. 4.1 In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the decision of Division Bench of this court in Ami....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment and the information is received that the assessee had not claimed benefit under Chapter VI-A, the accretion value as above was to be taxed under Section 56 of the Act. It was submitted that Assessing Officer had arrived at necessary satisfaction with reason to believe that it was fit case to be reopened. It was contended that the assessee's case that relief was not claimed under Section 80CCC (1) was not only erroneous but was an irrelevant consideration. 4.3 In support of the stand taken, learned advocate for the respondent relied on the decision in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Private Limited ((2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC)] in which the phrase 'reason to believe' was explained. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt received from the insurance company to show that the assessee paid pension amount from 2006 to 2012 totaling to Rs.48,60,000/- and premature redemption amount was Rs.59,89,740/-. (ii) Ledger copy of Bajaj Alliance Private Limited was submitted which mentioned the following details. (a) Accounting year 2005- 06- Rs.8,10,000/- from Piyush Ambalal Gandhi. (b) Accounting year 2007-08- Rs.8,10,000/- from Jasumatiben A. Gandhi. (c) Accounting year 2012-13- Rs.32,40,000/- from Piyushkumar A. Gandhi. (iii) Entries of pages from bank Development Finance Corporation Accounts of Housing. (iv) Redemption paper from Bajaj Alliance Private Limited of Rs.59,89,740/- date 23.11.2012. (v) Copy of the bank account of the HDFC and statement of Piyu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions rendering the receipt of surrender value not liable to be offered to tax. 5.4 On the facts operated as above, the case of the department that the petitioner had received the surrender value of policy upon its premature redemption and the same was liable to tax under Section 80CCC (2) of the Act, stands erroneous. Once it is a position obtained that the petitioner- assessee had not obtained a relief under Section 80CCC (1) of the Act, the redemption amount of the policy prematurely surrendered would not be liable to be taxed. 5.5 This aspect would be clear on bare reading of Section 80CCC of the Act. Section 80CCC deals with the deduction in respect of contribution to certain pension funds to provide in Sub section (1) that where any ....