MS SURBHI AGRAWAL , JAIPUR V. PCIT-2, JAIPUR, Jaipur

ITA 649/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5577 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VARINDER MEHTA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Assessment record; Set aside
• Section: 44AD; 40A(3); 80C; 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH A, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,O A JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 649/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15. MS SURBHI AGARWAL, B-1, NEW LITE COLONY, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE PRINCIPAL CIT-2, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. ARHPA 8560 F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DINESH KUMAR JAIN (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI VARINDER MEHTA (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 02.09.2019 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/09/2019. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E REVISION ORDER DATED 18 TH MARCH, 2009 PASSED BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL CIT-2, JAIP UR UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE IT ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. THE ASSESSEE HA S RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. PCIT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ISSUING NOTIC E AND PASSING THE ORDER U/S 263, MORE SO WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJU DICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 2 ITA NO. 649/JP/2019 MS SURBHI AGARWAL, JAIPUR. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. PCIT HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 8,36,000/- BY DISALLOWING U/S 40A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ACTION OF THE LD. PCIT IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGA INST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. PCIT HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 100000/- B Y DISALLOWING DEDUCTIONS U/S 80C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ACTIO N OF THE LD. PCIT IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE. 4. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND OR A LTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING. 2. THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS C OMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE IT ACT ON 26.12.2016 AT THE TOTAL IN COME OF RS. 59,33,000/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 6,64,126/-. SUBSEQUENTL Y, THE LD. PCIT ON EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DE RIVES INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE AND PAID CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 6,82,000/- FOR PURCHASE OF PLOT NO. A-123, SITARAM VIHAR VISTAR, VILLAGE RAMSINGHPURA, TEHSIL SANGANER, JAIPUR. SIMILARLY, IN OTHER CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE PURCHASE CONSI DERATION IN CASH. ACCORDINGLY THE CASH PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCH ASE OF STOCK-IN-TRADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FOUND TO BE HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE IT ACT BUT THE AO HAS NOT INVOKED THE SAID P ROVISION. THE LD. PCIT ALSO NOTICED THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,00,000/- FOR TUITION FEE PAID FOR SELF WAS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY THE LD. PCIT ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE IT ACT ON 15.02.2019 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER 3 ITA NO. 649/JP/2019 MS SURBHI AGARWAL, JAIPUR. UNDER SECTION 143(3) PASSED ON 26 TH DECEMBER, 2016 SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE R EVENUE AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REPLY. THE LD. PCIT WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED DURING THE HEARING AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) WAS HELD AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AS IT WAS PASSED IN ROUTINE MANNER WITHOUT CONDUCTI NG ANY ENQUIRY ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40A(3) AS WELL AS WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C OF THE IT ACT. HENCE THE ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED BY THE AO WAS SET ASIDE WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE AO TO REDO AFRESH A FTER EXAMINATION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40A(3) AS WELL AS THE CLAI M OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING VALIDITY OF EXERCISE OF J URISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMI TTED THAT WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE IT ACT , THE AO HAS GONE THROUGH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, SALES AND PURCHASES MADE BY THE A SSESSEE AND ALSO EXAMINED THE RELEVANT RECORD. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS APPLIED HIS MIND ON ALL THE TRANSACTIONS AND AFTER HIS FULL SATISFACTION, THE AO PASSED THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER. ONCE THE AO WAS SATISFIED WITH THE CLAIM AND TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW, THEN THE LD. PCIT CANNOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT HE DID NOT AGREE WITH THE VIEW OF THE AO. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE H AS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC). THE LD. A/R HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISIO N OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. GABRIEL INDIA LTD., 203 ITR 108 (BO MBAY) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE 4 ITA NO. 649/JP/2019 MS SURBHI AGARWAL, JAIPUR. HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE POWER UNDER SE CTION 263 IS TO BE EXERCISED IN CASE OF NO ENQUIRY AND NOT IN CASE OF INADEQUATE OR LACK OF ENQUIRY. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT I N CASE OF CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD., 295 ITR 282 (SC) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUP REME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE PHRASE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXPRESSION ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CA NNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. IF THE AO ADOPTS ONE OF THE TWO COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IF IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE OR WH ERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE AO HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES N OT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE. THUS THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. PCIT HAS WRONGLY AND ILLEGALLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY ENQUIRY ON BOTH THE ISSUES WHICH WERE TAKEN UP IN THE REVISION PROCEEDINGS. IT IS A CASE OF COMPLETE LACK OF ENQUIRY ON THE PART OF T HE AO WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT SHE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION IN CASH IN RESPEC T OF STOCK-IN-TRADE WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT AND, TH EREFORE, NON-EXAMINATION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) O N THE PART OF THE AO RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE LD. D/R HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAS A LSO ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM AS 5 ITA NO. 649/JP/2019 MS SURBHI AGARWAL, JAIPUR. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SAID DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF TUITION FEE PAID FOR HERSELF. THEREFORE, IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE AO HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80 C AND THERE IS A LACK OF ENQUIRY ON THE PART OF THE AO. HE HAS SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. PCIT. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VAR IOUS LEGAL CONTENTIONS AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUPPORTED THE SAME WITH THE BIND ING PRECEDENTS. THERE IS NO QUARREL ON THE LEGAL ASPECT OF THE MATTER THAT IF T HE AO HAS CONDUCTED AN ENQUIRY AND TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS ON AN ISSUE, TH EN THE LD. PCIT IS NOT PERMITTED TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 MERELY ON T HE GROUND THAT HE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO. THE SECOND ASPECT A S RAISED BY THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING LACK OF ENQUIRY ON THE PART O F THE AO. IT IS ALSO SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT IF THE AO HAS CONDUCTED SOM E ENQUIRY AND ALL RELEVANT RECORDS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE ASSESSMENT RECORD, THE N THE CASE WOULD NOT FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF COMPLETE LACK OF ENQUIRY RENDERING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THUS THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE O N THE LEGAL ASPECTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE BUT THE FACT REMAINS WHETHER THE AO HAS CON DUCTED AN ENQUIRY ON THESE TWO ISSUES I.E. APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) AS WELL AS ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C OF THE IT ACT. THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE PAYMENT OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION IN CASH. THEREFOR E, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE SUBJECT TO THE EXCEPT ION AS PROVIDED UNDER RULE 6DD OF THE IT RULES. WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE AO HAS PASSE D A VERY LENGTHY ORDER RUNNING INTO 43 PAGES, HOWEVER, THE ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40A(3) AS WELL AS THE 6 ITA NO. 649/JP/2019 MS SURBHI AGARWAL, JAIPUR. CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C WERE NOT TAKEN UP FOR VERIFICATION BY THE AO. THUS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS COMPLETELY SILENT ON THESE ISSUES AND THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST TH AT THE AO HAS EVEN RAISED ANY QUERY ON THESE TWO ISSUES. THUS, THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF COMPLETE LACK OF ENQUIRY ON THESE TWO ISSUES. THER EFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT OR SUBSTANCE IN GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE. THE LACK OF ENQUIRY ON THE PART OF THE AO RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERR ONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE EXE RCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE IT ACT IS VALID AND PROPER. GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD . PCIT ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE IT ACT IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENT MADE IN CASH OF RS. 8,36,000/-. 6. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED UNDER SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT AS THE TURNOV ER OF THE ASSESSEE IS RS. 85 LACS WHICH IS NOT EXCEEDING THE LIMIT PROVIDED UNDER SEC TION 44AD. THE LD. A/R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED PROFIT OF RS. 7.64 LACS WHICH IS 8.99% OF THE TURNOVER. THEREFORE, EVEN IF THERE IS A PAYMENT IN CASH WHICH IS HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3), ONCE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED UNDER SECTION 44AD AND ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED MORE THAN 8% OF PROF IT ON THE SAID TURNOVER, THEN NO FURTHER DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR. ALTERNATIVE LY HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE PAYMENT IN CASH WAS MADE TO THE LAND OWNERS DUE TO BUSINESS EXIGENCIES, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. I N SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENC H OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF M/S. A. DAGA ROYAL ARTS, JAIPUR VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 1065/ JP/2016 AND SUBMITTED THAT 7 ITA NO. 649/JP/2019 MS SURBHI AGARWAL, JAIPUR. WHEN THE AO HAS EXAMINED THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS NOT FOUND ANY DISCREPANCY, THEN THE PAYMENT MADE IN CASH DUE TO B USINESS EXPEDIENCY WOULD NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT . 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT BUT THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTA INED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE THE PLEA OF SEC TION 44AD EVEN IF THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN THE LIMIT PROVIDED UNDER THE SAID PROVISION. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED THIS ISS UE BEFORE THE LD. PCIT AND FURTHER THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE VE RIFIED WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE INCOME WHICH IS MORE THAN THE 8% OF TH E TURNOVER PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE IM PUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. PCIT. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSE SSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE DONE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION AND WERE EXAMINED BY THE AO AND, THEREFORE, THE AO APPLIED HIS MIND WHIL E PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENTS W ERE MADE FOR PURCHASE OF PLOTS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT DO UBTED BY THE AO. THUS THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT ONCE THE TRANSACTION IS GENUI NE, THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) CANNOT BE APPLIED. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A NEW PLEA THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD ARE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE INCOME UNDER THE NORM AL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT BASED ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE INCOME BASED ON THE BUSINESS RESULTS SHOWN IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THEN THE 8 ITA NO. 649/JP/2019 MS SURBHI AGARWAL, JAIPUR. AO IS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE RE TURN OF INCOME AND CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CONTEXT OF BUSINESS RESULTS SHOWN A S PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 44AD EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE LD. PCIT. EVEN OTHERWI SE, THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED BASED ON THE RELEVANT FACTS AS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS LESS THAN THE LIMIT PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 44AD, WOULD NOT PRECLUDE THE LD. PCIT TO EXERCISE HIS JURISDICTION UNDER SEC TION 263 REGARDING VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE PAYME NT OF CASH FOR PURCHASE OF PLOTS OF LAND SHOWN AS STOCK-IN-TRADE IS NOT IN DISPUTE, THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REQUIRED TO BE EXAMIN ED IN THE LIGHT OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND RULES. THOUGH THE LD. PCI T HAS OBSERVED THAT THE CASH PAYMENT IS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 40A(3), HOWE VER, WE DIRECT THE AO TO VERIFY THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEN DECIDE THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. GROUND NO. 3 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C OF THE ACT. 9. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT T HE AO HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C WHEN HE WAS SATISFIE D WITH THE CLAIM. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID A PREMIUM OF RS. 1,00,000/- TO M/S. BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE. IN SUP PORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE HAS FILED A COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE REFLECTI NG THE PAYMENT TO M/S. BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE. HE HAS ALSO FILED A COPY OF THE REC EIPT OF THE PAYMENT OF PREMIUM OF 9 ITA NO. 649/JP/2019 MS SURBHI AGARWAL, JAIPUR. RS. 1,00,000/- AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80C IS OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE AGAINST THE LIFE INSURANCE PREM IUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C REGARDING THE PREMI UM PAID FOR LIFE INSURANCE BUT IT WAS CLAIMED REGARDING THE TUITION FEE FOR HERSELF. EVEN NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE LD. PCIT. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW FILED THE RECEI PT OF PAYMENT OF PREMIUM TOWARDS LIFE INSURANCE WHICH WAS NOT FILED EITHER B EFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE LD. PCIT, THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO CONSIDER THE C LAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C AFTER VERIFICATION OF THE PAYMENT OF LIFE INSUR ANCE PREMIUM. ACCORDINGLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. PCIT IS MODIFIED. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/09/2019. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 04/09/2019. DAS/ 10 ITA NO. 649/JP/2019 MS SURBHI AGARWAL, JAIPUR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT-MS SURBHI AGARWAL, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE PRINCIPAL CIT-2, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO.649/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR