Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Dilip Kumar Pachori, Pratapgarh vs Dcit (Circle) Intl.Tax, Jaipur on 3 May, 2023
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"B" JAIPUR
Jh lana hi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@IT(IT)A No. 04/JP/2023
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17
Dilip Kumar Pachori cukeDy Commissioner of Income
Village and Post-Parsola, Vs. Tax,
Dhariyawad, Dist. Pratapgarh (Circle) International
Taxation
4th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-02,
LIC Building, Ambedkar
Circle, Jaipur
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BBSPP 2607 L
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj l@
s Assessee by : None
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 27/04/2023
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 03/05/2023
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 28/12/2022 [here in after (NFAC)/ ld. CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2016-17 which in turn arise from the order dated 17.05.2022 passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act by DCIT, Circle, International Taxation, Jaipur. 2
IT(IT) A No. 04/JP/2023 Dilip Kumar Pachori vs. DCIT
2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: -
"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(Appeals), Delhi-42 erred in holding validity of acquisition of valid jurisdiction for assessment, even issue of notice u/s 148 by the non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer.
2. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the assessment order passed by the learned AO is without following the mandatory issuance of statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, even after sent of ITR V to CPC Bengaluru by speed post.
3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have upheld in treating a principal repayment by the LIC as a taxable income, without appreciating the evidence for claim of investment.
4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify and/or delete all or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the final hearing, if necessary."
3. At the time of hearing, none appeared when the case was called, which shows that the assessee is not interest in pursuing the present appeal. From the record, we noticed that on the last date of hearing, assessee had sought adjournment and considering the content of the application matter was adjourned for today i.e. 27.04.2023. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called for hearing. The ld. DR present in the tribunal is ready with the arguments. Therefore, we have decided to proceed with the case ex parte on the basis of the documents placed on record.
4. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee did not file his ITR for the A.Y 2016-17. On the basis of the information received a notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 18.03.2021 for 3 IT(IT) A No. 04/JP/2023 Dilip Kumar Pachori vs. DCIT filing of ITR for A.Y 2016-17 after getting prior approval from the Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-02, UDP. In response the notice u/s 148, the assessee filed his ITR for A.Y 2016-17 on 31.07.2021 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,04,550/- but the same has not been e-verified till date. Thus, the AO has no other choice but to complete the case u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
4.1 On perusal of the submission made by the assessee and information available on record as form 26AS, ITR filed, Income computation, copy of bank a/c statement etc., it is noted that during the year under consideration i.e. F.Y 2015-16 the assessee received interest from Bank of Baroda of Rs. 1,31,583/-. Received interest from SBBJ of Rs. 93,404/- and received Rs. 45,20,361/- from Life Insurance Corporation of India. On perusal of the submission made by the assessee and material available on record it is noted that the assessee received Rs. 45,20,361/- on 20.08.2015 in his NRE bank a/c held with SBI from Life Insurance Corporation of India as maturity amount of old Policy which was originally purchased on 20.08.2005. The assessee has claimed this maturity amount as exempted amount and therefore non taxable.Therefore, ld. AO asked assessee to show cause why 4 IT(IT) A No. 04/JP/2023 Dilip Kumar Pachori vs. DCIT the amount of Rs. 45,20,361/- should not be added to his total income for the year under consideration.
4.2 In response to the above mentioned show cause notice the assessee submitted in the response dated 29.03.2022 wherein he has submitted that "I have received 4520361/- on maturity of LIC I have invested Rs. 2500000/- on 15.08.2005 & received 4520361/- on maturity which includes my principle investment Rs. 2500000/-, vested bonus 1770361/- and interim bonus 250000/-. Vested bonus and interim bonus is not taxable under income tax. In alternatively if we compute capital gain then realization is 4520361/-. However, cost of acquisition is 2500000*1081/497 i.e. 5437625/-. Thus I am having long term capital loss also in this lic policy. I request you to kindly consider my reply. I am not liable to any tax on maturity of this lic policy. I have not earned any income from lic, however, investment made from own income also have inflation loss while calculating capital gain." The submission made by the assessee was considered by ld. AO but found not acceptable as the assessee failed to substantiate the claim without any supporting documents. Also, the claim of investment of Rs. 25,00,000/- is not submitted by the assessee. Therefore, ld. AO stated that the exemption claim of the assessee remains unexplained based on. The discussion made above the claim of the exemption of Rs. 45,20,361/- made by the assessee was disallowed.
5
IT(IT) A No. 04/JP/2023 Dilip Kumar Pachori vs. DCIT
5. Aggrieved from the order of the assessment assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Apropos to the grounds of the appeal so raised on the merits of the case the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here in below :
"12.4 The appellant himself submits that he had paid Rs. 24,04,200/- as single premium towards the policy. Therefore, as the premium paid in this case, was more than 20% of the sum assured, the money received was fully taxable. Therefore, the claim of exemption has rightly been rejected by the AO. In the facts of the case and applicable law, the receipt of Rs. 45,20,361/- is held to be taxable.
12.5 The appellant has claimed deduction of original investment from the proceeds. It is observed that at the time of assessment, the appellant had failed to explain the source of investment, therefore, the same was treated as unexplained and not allowed. During the course of appeal also, no explanation or any documentary evidence as regards the investment and source thereof has been submitted by the appellant. Therefore, the action of the AO in taxing the entire amount is found to be justified and is confirmed. 12.6 These grounds are dismissed."
6. Now, the assessee has come up in appeal before us with the grounds so raised and reiterated here in above.
7. The ld DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities and submitted that there is no material on the record contrary to the finding of the ld. CIT(A).
6
IT(IT) A No. 04/JP/2023 Dilip Kumar Pachori vs. DCIT
8. We have heard the ld. DR, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of lower authorities. In spite of giving opportunities to the assessee, the assessee has neither submitted any written submission nor appeared before the tribunal so as to support the grounds raised before us. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is presumed that the assessee is not serious in prosecuting his case. In the absence of any submission from the side of the assessee we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A), which is hereby upheld.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03/05/2023.
Sd/- Sd/-
¼ lanhi xkslkbZ ½ ¼ jkBkSM deys'k t;arHkkbZ ½
(Sandeep Gosain) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai)
U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur
fnukad@Dated:- 03/05/2023
*Ganesh Kumar
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs 'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant- Dilip Kumar Pachori, Pratapgarh
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT (Circle), International Taxation, Jaipur
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A)
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (IT(IT)A No. 04/JP/2023) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar