Gujarat High Court
Piyush Ambalal Gandhi vs Dy Commissoner Of Income Tax Circle 2 on 27 November, 2018
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani, A. P. Thaker
C/SCA/17829/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17829 of 2018
===============================================================
PIYUSH AMBALAL GANDHI
Versus
DY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2
===============================================================
Appearance:
MR KETAN H SHAH(2705) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR. AMAN K SHAH(9992) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
and
HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER
Date : 27/11/2018
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
1. Mr. Ketan Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment of the petitioner for assessment year 2013-14, to point out that according to the Assessing Officer, the petitioner has surrendered the pension policy of Bajaj Allianz Insurance Pvt. Ltd. before the maturity date and that the gain of Rs.11,29,740/- on account of such premautre surrender of pension policy was required to be offered for taxation in the year under consideration as per the provisions of section 80CCC(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Reference was made to the computation of total income for assessment years 2006-07 and 2008-09, to point out that at no point of time, has the petitioner claimed deduction under section 80CCC(1) of the Act. It was pointed out that pursuant to the Page 1 of 2 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 19 04:12:42 IST 2021 C/SCA/17829/2018 ORDER notices issued by the Income Tax Officer calling upon the petitioner to explain premature surrender of pension policy of Bajaj Allianz Insurance Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner had furnished the necessary information and vide reply dated 01.01.2018, the petitioner had specifically stated that he had not claimed any deduction under section VI-A of the Act for the investment in the policy in question. It was submitted that when the petitioner has not claimed any deduction under section 80CCC(1) of the Act, the question of offering the amount received on account of premature surrender of the policy does not arise.
2. It was submitted that therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have formed the belief that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
3. The learned advocate for the petitioner has also submitted that the reasons recorded do not bear any date.
4. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Issue Notice returnable on 7th January, 2019. By way of ad-interim relief, the respondent is permitted to proceed further with the assessment; he, however, shall not pass the final order without the permission of this court.
Direct Service is permitted.
(HARSHA DEVANI, J) (A. P. THAKER, J) B.U. PARMAR Page 2 of 2 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 19 04:12:42 IST 2021