Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ranchi
Shri Anil Kumar Pandey, Daltonganj vs Ito Ward-3(4), Daltonganj on 31 May, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.81/Ran/2017
Assessment Year: 2010-2011
Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, Vs. ITO, Ward 3(4) Daltonganj
Prop. M/s. MAA Shardey
Automobiles, Rehla,
Daltonganj
PAN/GI R No. ADBPP 7861 L
(Appellant) .. ( Respondent)
Assessee by: Shri Pankaj Khejriwal, Adv
Revenue by : Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT
Date of Hearing : 30/05/ 2018
Date of Pronouncement : 31 /05/ 2018
ORDER
Per N.S.Saini, AM
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)- Ranchi dated 9.2.2017 for the assessment year 2010-2011.
2. In Ground Nos.1 & 2, the grievance of the assessee is that the initiation of proceedings u/s.147 is illegal and unjustified. 2 ITA No.81/ R an/2 017
Ass e s s men t Y ea r: 2 010 -20 11
3. No arguments were advanced by ld A.R. of the assessee in respect of the initiation of proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. Hence, this issue is dismissed for want of prosecution.
4. In Ground Nos.3 & 4, the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the confirming the addition of Rs.4,66,370/-
5. On perusal of order of the CIT(A), we find that this ground is not arising out of order of the CIT(A). Hence, this ground is dismissed.
6. Ground No.5 is directed against the disallowing the deduction of Rs.1,00,000/- u/s. 80U of the Act for permanent physical disability.
7. The Assessing Officer disallowed deduction of Rs.1,00,000/- u/s. 80U of the Act on the ground that although the assessee has attached a certificate from an Orthopaedic Surgeon in Appendix-C, while as per the provisions of section, this certificate has to be signed by the Civil Surgeon of the Chief Medical Officer.
7. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:
"I have considered the submissions of the appellant and have also perused the assessment order. Section 80U(2) states "every individual claiming a deduction under this section shall furnish a copy of the certificate issued by the medical authority in the form and manner, as may be prescribed, alongwith the return of income under section 139, in respect of the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed.3 ITA No.81/ R an/2 017
Ass e s s men t Y ea r: 2 010 -20 11 Provided that where the condition of disability requires reassessment of its extent after a period stipulated in the aforesaid certificate, no deduction under this section shall be allowed for any assessment year relating to any previous year beginning after the expiry of the previous year during which the aforesaid certificate of disability had expired, unless a new certificate is obtained from the medical authority in the form and manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof is furnished alongwith the return of income under section 139.
11.3 The provision clearly states that "shall furnish a copy of the certificate issued by the medical authority in the form and manner, as may be prescribed, alongwith the return of income under section 139. Rule 11A prescribes "(1) for the purposes of clause(e) of the Explanation to sub-section (4) of section 80DD and clause (d) of the Explanation to sub-section (2) of section 80U, the medical authority for certifying "autism" "cerebral palsy" "multiple disabilities", "person with disability" and "severe disability" referred to in clauses 9a), (c), (h), (j) and (o) of section 2 of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardations and Multiple Disabilities act, 1999 (44 of 1999) 60 shall consist of the following:-
(i) a Neurologist having a degree of Doctor of Medicine (MD) in Neurology (in case of children, a paediatric Neurologist having an equivalent degree) :or
(ii) a Civil Surgeon or Chief Medical Officer in a Government hospital.
11,4 Admittedly, the appellant was not liable to fulfil the mandatory condition laid down in the section. The deduction was, therefore, rightly denied by the AO. Ground of appeal is dismissed."
8. Before us, no error could be pointed out by ld A.R. of the assessee by bringing any positive material on record to controvert the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, we dismiss this ground of appeal of the assessee. 4 ITA No.81/ R an/2 017
Ass e s s men t Y ea r: 2 010 -20 11
9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31/05/2018 Sd/- sd/-
(PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (N.S Saini)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ranchi; Dated 31/05 /2018
B.K.Parida, SPS
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant : Prop. M/s. MAA Shardey
Automobiles, Rehla, Daltonganj
2. The respondent ITO, Ward 3(4) Daltonganj
3. The CIT(A), Ranchi
4. Pr. CIT, Ranchi
5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi
6. Guard file.
//True Copy// BY ORDER,
SR.PS, ITAT,
CAMP AT RANCHI