Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 796 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - As per CIT original asset in question was not of HUF and therefore directed the AO for clubbing as per provisions of section 64(2)(b) - HELD THAT:- As assessee before us stated that the returns of income of HUF were filed for assessment year 1998- 99 and the statement of affairs were filed from assessment year 2002-03 with the Department - assessee mainly harped on the fact that he got married on 07.07.1975 and HUF is formed on that very date. We may agree that the HUF might have formed on the day they got married but what is the nucleus available with the HUF. Assessee categorically denied having any nucleus till assessment year 1998- 99. The properties purchased by individual in their individual name and from the individual source of income cannot be treated as property of HUF. Even the assessee could not prove any nucleus. Once this is the position, as the assessee is unable to prove its case, it is presumed that it has rightly been held that these properties belong to these two individuals i.e., Smt. Bhavani Mahadevan and Shri R. Mahadevan in their individual capacity and not of the HUF. PCIT’s finding is supported by evidences that these properties by Smt.Bhavani Mahadevan and Shri R. Mahadevan are all in their individual capacities purchased in the year during 1994 & 1995. There is no evidence that these properties were purchased by assessee HUF i.e., Mahadevan HUF and in the absence of any evidence, we cannot reverse the findings of PCIT. Secondly, the assessee has claimed the sale consideration out of these properties as long term capital gain in the hands of HUF and claimed deduction u/s.54F of the Act in respect of purchase of house property at Abiramapuram i.e., residential house or flat. We noted that PCIT has rightly held the assessment order as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. But, we noted that the PCIT has set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to reframe the assessment as per the provisions of law after considering the submissions and evidences, if any as per law. We find no infirmity in the order of PCIT revising the assessment and setting aside the matter to the file of AO. - Appeal of assessee dismissed.
|