TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see had received the gifts. He has further held that provisions of sub section 9 of Section 171 are effective for partitions effected after 31.12.1978 but the partition of Mansukhlal M. Shah HUf has been effected on 1.11.1978. As Revenue could not controvert the findings of CIT(A) no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus dismiss the appeal of Revenue. - I.T.A. No. 3364/AHD/2008 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2013 - Shri G. C. Gupta V. P. And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Y. P. Verma For the Respondent : Mr. Manish J. Shah ORDER Per: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M. This appeal is filed against the order of CIT (A)-Valsad dated 13-6- 2008 for the assessment year 2005-06. 2. The facts as culled o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of capital of HUF from the date of its inception. In response to the notice of the A.O., assessee interalia informed that the HUF was formed through a gift of Rs.11,000/- from Shri Mansukhlal Shah father of karta (shri Paresh M. Shah) which was made on 8-5- 1992. The gift made was to be used for the benefit of the family of Shri Paresh M. Shah. It was further submitted that the return of Gift was filed by Shri Mansukhlal Shah on 20-5-1995 and the same was accepted by the Department. Assessing Officer was of the view that since gift was stated to have been made on 8-5-1992, the claim of HUF should have been made in A.Y. 1993-94 and accordingly the assessee should have filed its return on or before 31-3-1995. Since the HUF assessee has not f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arceners was given individual right of these properties and whatever right was given on partial partition was collectively of 3 persons. He therefore, concluded that none of the individual was enjoying absolute right of the galas/properties. He further observed that the 3 coparceners collectively enjoyed the income earned from the property individually upto A.Y. 2005-06 and no claim of HUF was made by these 3 individuals since A.Y. 2005-06. On sale of the property Shri Paresh Mansukhlal Shah had thrown away his individual right of to the A.O.P. of himself and therefore Rs.4,32,085/- being the 1/3rd share of sales proceed received by the A.O.P. was without consideration of its money and value and therefore, he concluded that it was the incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M. Shah HUF and entries recorded in books of Paresh M. Shah HUF which were duly submitted. Also, Manharlal M. Shah HUF has been regularly filing return of income. Hence, the amount of Rs. 11,000/- has been rightly shown as capital of HUF of Paresh M. Shah HUF. The appellant had received a gift of Rs. 5 lacs. As submitted by the A. R. of the appellant, the said gift was received from Shri Mansukhlal Molichand Shah, HUF by Cheque No.7294 dated 27.3.2004 drawn on SBl'P Co-operative Bank Ltd.. Vapi Bazar Branch. The said gift was received by account payee cheque and the donor has confirmed the same. The gift has been recorded in a memorandum of gift executed on a stamp paper dated 19.07.2004. The amount of gift given by Manharlal M. Shah HUF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
