Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (1) TMI 855

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e, an individual, had filed his return for the impugned assessment year on 30.03.2006 declaring an income of Rs. 6,00,531/-. Such return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). Thereafter on 02.07.2009, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued, pursuant to which assessee filed another return in which the total income declared was Rs. 3,91,160/-. In such return, assessee had claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act, for reinvestment of long term capital gains arising out of the sale of a property. Assessee had inherited one third share in a property at Survey No.227/1 at Perungudi village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District from his father. His father had acquired such property in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... acquisition of new property on 27.08.2004 and construction of house therein. Again as per the assessee, HUF of which he was the kartha, had filed return wherein the sale of the land was declared and exemption under section 54F was duly claimed. Hence, according to him, the addition made towards the capital gains in his individual hand was incorrect and deserved to be deleted. An affidavit was also filed before the CIT(A) in support. Assessee further pointed out that the Tribunal on assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 had remitted a similar issue back to the CIT(A) for consideration afresh and the CIT(A) subsequently had deleted the addition made for that year. 5. Ld. CIT(A) was appreciative of these contentions. According to him .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... date of hearing. As per the Ld. D.R, assessee had even filed VDIS declaration wherein the subject property was shown as owned by him in his individual capacity. New asset was also acquired in the individual capacity of the assessee, quoting his individual and not in his capacity as kartha of any HUF. Assessee had even filed Wealth Tax return in his individual capacity wherein the impugned properties were shown. Therefore, according to him, CIT(A) fell in error when he held that property belonged to a HUF of which assessee was the kartha, ignoring the return filed by the assessee himself in his individual capacity where the capital gains was worked out and exemption claimed. 7. Per contra, Ld. A.R strongly supporting the order of the CIT(A) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... one and was thrown into the common hotchpotch of the HUF, of which assessee was the kartha by means of deed of declaration dated 20.03.2004. If such declaration indeed existed, we wonder why the assessee choose to file a return in his individual capacity declaring capital gains arising out of the transfer of an asset, which stood thrown into the common hotchpotch of the HUF. No doubt, for Assessment Year 2006-07, a similar claim made by the assessee was allowed. However, in our opinion, this cannot be taken as a precedent, since appeal of the Revenue against such order was dismissed 8 ITA. 1330 /Mds/12 by this Tribunal only due to low tax effect. A look at Sec.54F(1) is necessary at this juncture. The said section is reproduced hereunder:- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ansfer of the original asset; or (iii) constructs any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of three years after the date of transfer of the original asset; and (b) the income from such residential house, other than the one residential house owned on the date of transfer of the original asset, is chargeable under the head "Income from house property" Proviso to sub-section (1) states that the said exemption cannot be claimed where the assessee owned more than one residential house or where the assessee had purchased any residential house other than the new asset or constructed a new house other than the new asset within the stipulated period. Here, admittedly, assessee had made certain claims for sale and acquisiti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates