TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HUF. Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that this was substantial compliance with the requirement of section 54F of the Act when neither the source of acquisition of the new capital asset nor the account of such new asset in the name of the HUF are doubted. Mere technicality that the sale deed was executed in the name of member of the HUF rather not HUF, would not be sufficient to defeat the claim of deduction. By mere names of the purchasers in the sale deed, the rights of the HUF and other members of the HUF do not get defeated. If at all, the persons' named in the sale deed hold the property of the trust for and on behalf of HUF and the other members of the HUF. In the present case, the capital asset was sold by the HUF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lacs. The capital gain arising out of such transaction was ₹ 12,71,068/-. The assessee claimed exemption of such capital gain under section 54F of the Act on the ground that it has purchased new residential house for ₹ 20 lacs. Assessing Officer scrutinized such claim and noticed that purchase of the new residential house was in the name of two members of the HUF and not in the name of HUF. He was of the opinion that for claiming exemption under section 54F of the Act, the purchase of a new capital asset had to be by the same assessee who had sold the capital asset which was a subject-matter of gain. 4. CIT (A) and the Tribunal reversed such decision, in particular, the Tribunal while confirming the view of the CIT (A) made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he name of the Karta of the HUF or in the name of one or more members of the HUF. A Karta of the HUF or a member of the HUF can hold a property on behalf of the HUF or in individual capacity as a beneficial. Owner without going into the merits of the capability of HUF to acquire and hold property in its name, we do find justification for purchase of property in the name of its members to shun alleged obscure position in this regard. 6. Counsel for the Revenue contended that the assessee had not fulfilled the requirements of section 54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer was therefore correct in denying the exemption. He relied on the following judgements. (i) Decision of Delhi High Court in case of Vipin Malik (HUF) vs. Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court did not have occasion to exempt this aspect of the matter. In case of Kalya vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), Rajasthan High Court was concerned with the very different situation. It was a case where the assessee had sold an immovable property and purchased a new agriculture land in the name of his son and daughter-in-law. It was in this background, the assessee's claim for exemption under section 54B of the Act was declined. Likewise, in case of Prakash (by legal heir of assessee) vs. Income Tax Officer (supra), the assessee had invested the sale proceeds out of sale of capital asset in name of adopted son. It was in this background held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 54F of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
