9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer's action, the assessee has preferred the present appeal with the following proposed questions of law:- [1] Whether on facts Tribunal has substantially erred in law in confirming taxation of long term capital gain on sale of immovable property at Rs. 20,63,888/- in the hands of the appellant when the ancestral inherited property is owned, sold and the taxed in the hands of the appellant HUF? [2] Whether on facts and in law, mistake of mentioning PAN of the appellant instead of the HUF in the sale deed results into chargeable capital gain in the hands of the appellant on sale of inherited immovable property owned by the appellant HUF? [3] Whether on facts and in law, the Tribunal has substantially erred in confirmi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me, the assessee submitted that capital gain arising out of the aforesaid sale was shown in the case of assessee's HUF and the said property belonged to HUF. However, considering the material on record, the learned Assessing Officer did not accept that the property belonged to HUF. Considering the material on record and the surrounding circumstances, the Assessing Officer held that the property belonged to the assessee, who sold the same and therefore, capital gain arising out of sale of the above property was required to be computed and added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, he framed the assessment order and added capital gain in the total income. 2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the assessment order, the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng officer made in the impugned addition because in the sale deed appellant was shown as a seller in his individual capacity, PAN number used in the sale deed was that of the individual, sale proceeds were deposited into the appellant's bank account held in individual capacity et cetera. 5.2 I have carefully considered the arguments taken by the assessing officer, submissions made by the appellant and the material available on records. It is the case of the appellant that the impugned ancestral property was actually acquired by the HUF of the appellant and that actually by mistake the appellant has given his individual PAN number at the time of execution of the sale deed. It has been argued that the property has been inherited by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed property as belonging to him in his individual capacity and not as belonging to his HUF. The argument of AO that the sale proceeds of the impugned property were deposited into the bank account held by the appellant in his individual capacity which shown that the property was always held as an individual property are also found to be correct. In case the property was belonging to the HUF, then firstly the appellant should have signed as karta of the HUF secondly should have used the PANo. of the HUF and thirdly should have deposited the sale proceeds in the bank account of the HUF as the HUF was having a separate bank account. Thus, in view of the above facts of the case it is concluded that the AO has not made any mistake of law or facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
