TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... direct the A.O. to treat the amount of ₹ 2,25,000 received from the HUF as an amount exempted under section 56(2). The addition is accordingly deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. Amount credited to the loan account which is not reflected the firms accounts - Held that:- Prima facie assessee has source for the above amount and this cannot be treated as a gift under the provisions of section 56(2). However, since A.O. did not examine the ledger account nor Ld. CIT(A) consider it in his order, we set aside the same to the A.O. to verify the ledger accounts of the firm and delete the same. With these directions, the issue is restored to the file of A.O. to do accordingly. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0(2)(vi) has been considered by the Coordinate Bench of Rajkot Bench in the case of Vineetkumar Raghavjibhai Bhalodia vs. ITO (2011) 46 SOT 97 (Rajkot) wherein similar issue was considered. The Coordinate Bench while considering whether HUF can be considered as Relative under the provisions of section 56(2) has held as under : 11.1. An HUF is a person within the meaning of s. 2(31) of the IT Act and is a distinctively assessable unit under the Act. The IT Act does not define expression HUF . It is well defined area under the Hindu law which has received recognition throughout. Therefore, the expression HUF must be construed in the sense in which it is understood under the Hindu law as has been in the case of Surjit Lal Chhabda vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he collective gift from all the members of the club and not the secretary in his individual capacity. And if it is held otherwise, it will lead to an absurdity of interpretation which is not acceptable in interpretation of statutes as has been held by the Hon ble apex Court in the case of K. Govindan Sons vs. CIT (supra). 11.2. Further, from a plain reading of s. 56(2)(vi) along with the Explanation to that section and on understanding the intention of the legislature from the section, we find that a gift received from relative , irrespective of whether it is from an individual relative or from a group of relatives is exempt from tax under the provisions of s. 56(2)(vi) of the Act as a group of relatives also falls within the Explanat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as a single unit, rather, an HUF is a group of relatives as it is formed by the relatives. Therefore, in our considered view, the relative explained in Explanation to s. 56(2)(vi) of the Act includes relatives and as the assessee received gift from his HUF , which is a group of relatives , the gift received by the assessee from the HUF should be interpreted to mean that the gift was received from the relatives therefore the same is not taxable under s. 56(2)(vi) of the Act, we hold accordingly. 4. In view of the above, respectfully following the same, we hold that HUF can be treated as a relative under the provisions of section 56(2) so as to exclude the amount received from HUF by the assessee-individual. Accordingly, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounting entries are quite in accordance with the accepted Biravelli Bhaskar, Karimnagar accounting principles. It is further submitted that the said relevant ledger extracts are also submitted to the A.O. as well as to the Ld. CIT(A) who not only ignored the above but brought the amount to tax in spite of clear mention that the amounts were paid by the firm. 7. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the paper book, we are of the opinion that both the authorities have misled themselves in bringing the amount to tax. As seen from the ledger account furnished there was debit of ₹ 90,000 on 15.03.2008 in the personal account of the assessee in the firms books, as well as amount of ₹ 70,000 drawn on the same date. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
