TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 649
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of assessment 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 detail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 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. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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) 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 i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 ....