Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata
Raja Mansukhani, Kolkata vs Assessee
आयकर अपीलीय अधीकरण, Ûयायपीठ - "एस.एम.सी", कोलकाता,
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH "SMC",
KOLKATA
(सम¢)Before ौीमती Ǒदवा िसंह, Ûयायीक सदःया,
Smt. Diva Singh, Judicial
Member.
आयकर अपील संÉया / ITA No.326/Kol/2010
िनधॉरण वषॅ/Assessment Year :
2004-05 -वनाम-
(अपीलाथȸ/APPELLANT ) - (ू×यथȸ/RESPONDENT)
Shri Raja Mansukhani Versus- The ITO, Ward-27(3),
(PAN: ADQPM 3355 D) . Kolkata
अपीलाथȸ कȧ ओर से/ For the Appellant: None
ू×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/For the Respondent: Shri R.K.Paul, Sr DR
आदे श/ORDER
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)- XXXVI, Kolkata dated 30.11.2009 pertaining to 2004-05 assessment year wherein the assessee has agitated the following grounds :-
"1. That your 'a' was claiming the deduction u/s 80DDB since long and produced documents to his employer and his employer considered the same which reflected in FORM 16.
2. That your 'a' claimed the deduction u/s 80DB which is genuine and true as such the claim may be allowed by your honour.
3. Your 'a' claimed full relief as a matter of genuineness."
2. At the time of hearing an adjournment was moved on behalf of the assessee. However on perusal of the record the application was rejected. Since it was considered that the appeal can be decided on merit after hearing the ld. DR..
3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs.60,000/- u/s 80DDB. The return was processed u/s 143(1) which was subjected 2 to proceeding u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act. In the 154 proceedings it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that the deduction was claimed on account of medical treatment of his daughter Gayatri Mansukhani and in support of the claim medical report of the assessee's daughter from Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre dated 23.05.1991 and a copy of the clinical notes dated 24.04.2003 from National Neuro Sciences Centre, Kolkata was filed. Considering those the AO required the assessee to file vide letter No.ITO Wd-27(3/Kol/154/07-08 dt.09/05/2007 the following documents :
"a) any proof of expenditure actually incurred for medical treatment of his daughter Gayatri Mansukhani
b) A certificate in the prescribed from a specialist as prescribed u/s 80DDB working in a Govt. hospital."
3.1. In response to which on behalf of the assessee the following cash memos regarding purchase of medicine was filed :
Sl.No. Name of Medicine Memo No. Date Amount Rs.
shop
1. Medi Point 70907 25/01/2006 54.05
2. DO 63796 18/11/2005 208.38
3. Lindsay Blue Print R-017 01/04/2006 296.18
4. Do 3059 30/04/2006 268.10
5. Do 5922 27/05/2006 125.40 Total Rs.952.11 However, not convinced the claim of the assessee was rejected by the AO as under :-
"The cash memos total amounting to Rs.952.11 so filed by the assesee are not related with the financial year 2003-04 relevant to assessment year 2004-05. The assessee could not file a certificate in the prescribed form from a specialist as prescribed u/s 80DDB working in a Govt. hospital.
Since the assessee failed to produce the documentary evidences in support of his claim as per requirements refer to (a and (b) as above, the deduction u/s 80DDB of Rs.60,000/- is disallowed."3
3.2. In appeal before the First Appellate Authority the following submissions were advanced :
"That your appellant is an employee of M/s.SIEMENS LTD filed his I.T. return for the A.Y. 2004-05 showing total income Rs.4,36,540/- where he claim exemption u/s 80DDB of Rs.60,000/-
That your appellant claimed exemption u/s 80DDB on the basis of documents submitted to his employer M/s. SIEMENS Ltd and the employer duly considered the same and gave exemption which was reflected in the salary certificate in Form 16.
That after a lapse of 4 years your appellant received a notice u/s 154 of the IT Act which was complied with reply along with few documents in support of his claim.
That the AO neither considered those nor applied his sympathetic consideration over the matter is a genuine and so long pending one as the documents speak the truth considering the facts, I on behalf of your appellant my pray before your honour to consider the matter on humanitarian grounds and give full relief."
3.3. On behalf of the assessee copy of the medical report of his daughter Gayatri Mansukhani from M/s. Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre which diagnosed the patient to be suffering from delayed milestones of development and mental retardation were filed. The claim of the assessee that the rectification was issued after four years was not accepted by the CIT(A). The assessee has not agitated that issue in the present proceedings. However even on merit the action of the AO was confirmed in view of the fact that expenses pertaining to the relevant year were not placed on record and the contention that M/s. Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre is a Govt. hospital was also held to be not correct.
3.4. Still aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
4. After hearing the ld.DR and perusing the material available on record and on a careful consideration of the same it is considered appropriate to restore the issue back to the file of the AO. The said view is taken in the interests of substantial justice where the assessee is granted liberty to place on record necessary evidences in support of the claim of deduction which is a piece of beneficial legislation. The assessee shall also be at liberty to file necessary certification etc. of the Govt. hospital as per the requirement of law if any so as to substantiate its claim. The AO shall duly examine 4 these and pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
5. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per the pronouncement made in the open court in the presence of the parties on the date of hearing itself i.e. 02.11.2010.
.
Sd/-
Ǒदवा िसंह, Ûयायीक सदःया, Diva Singh, Judicial Member.
Date : 02.11.2010.
R.G.(.P.S.) आदे श कȧ ूितिलǒप अमेǒषतः-
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. Shri Raja Mansukhani, A-4, Middleton Apartments, 3 Middleton Row, Kolkata-700071.
2 The I.T.O., Ward-27(3), Kolkata.
3. The CIT, 4. The CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata,
5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata स×याǒपत ूित/True Copy, आदे शानुसार/ By order, Deputy /Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Kolkata Benches