TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by operation of law immediately before his death and in this partition, all the coparceners and the Hindu Male s widow get a share in the joint family property. On the application of section 8 of the Act, it was held that such property would devolve only by intestacy and not survivorship. It was also held that after the joint family property has been distributed in accordance with section 8 on the principles of intestacy, the joint family property ceases to be joint family property in the hands of the various persons who have succeeded to it as they hold the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants. Thus, the above decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court on the inheritance of property of an individual who dies intestate, after the introduction of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, hold that on the death of the Hindu Male, the property devolves on the heirs in their individual capacity and ceases to be the HUF property. Respectfully following said decision, we hold that the property inherited by the respective assessees is their individual property and, therefore, the capital gains, if any, is exigible to tax in their individual hands alone. Whether the said property i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iah, Dappu Ashok (HUF), Dappu Narasimha (HUF), Dappu Babu Rao (HUF), Dappu Narasimha (larger HUF), Dappu Naveen Kumar (HUF), Banda Sudershan (HUF), Sri Banda Pentaiah, Banda Mallesh (HUF), Konde Narasimha (HUF) Versus Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 8(1), Hyderabad. ORDER PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M.: All these group appeals are filed by different assessees. Since common issues are involved, these appeals were clubbed and heard together, therefore, a common and consolidated order is passed in all these appeals for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 1001/Hyd/2019 in the case of Kadada Babu Rao (HUF) 2. This is the assessee s appeal for AY 2007-08 against the order of CIT(A) III, Hyderabad dated 25/03/2011. 3. Brief facts of the case are that there was a survey u/s 133A of the IT Act on 31/10/2008 in the case of Konde Anjaiah Group and M/s Balaji Real Estates. During the course of survey, it was noticed that the assessee along with other groups of family members have sold certain lands in Peeramcheruvu Village to M/s PBEL Property Development (India) Pvt. Ltd. during the FY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eduction u/s 54F. Similarly, he also disallowed assessee s claim of deduction u/s 54B on the ground that assessee is an HUF, whereas section 54B is applicable only to individuals. He also disallowed the expenditure on sale of land i.e. ₹ 14,00,000/- on the ground that assessee has failed to prove the claim of deduction with any evidence. Accordingly, he computed the long term capital gains and brought it to tax in the hands of the assessee, HUF. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A. Similarly, all other assessees filed appeals before the respective CIT(A)s against the orders of AOs treating the individuals as Kartas of HUF and bringing capital gain arising out of the above transaction to tax. 5. The CIT(A) granted relief to all the assesses by holding that the land is beyond 8 km from limits of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and therefore is not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act. 6. Against the orders of CIT(A), the revenue filed appeals before the Tribunal and the coordinate bench of this Tribunal has held the issue in favour of the revenue by holding that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer, wherein, the deduction u/s 54F was not allowed without any cogent reasons. 8. The learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer, wherein, the deduction u/s 54B was not allowed assuming that the assessee's status is that of HUF not an Individual by rejecting the claim of the assessee that his status is Individual. 9. The learned Commissioner erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer, wherein, ₹ 14 Lakhs, was not allowed, which was incurred on account of sale of land, without any cogent reasons. 10. The assessment is made by issuing a notice u/s 148 to the non-existing HUF, therefore, notice issued is invalid. Therefore, the learned Commissioner erred in confirming the assessment order which stands on an invalid notice. Therefore, assessment on the invalid notice required to be cancelled/treated as null and void. 11. Learned Assessing officer completed the assessment and issued Form No. 156 (demand notice) without allotting PAN, therefore, the demand notice and the order, are to be held as invalid. 12. The appellant craves leave to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon by ld. Counsel for the assessee are as under: 1. Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar (SC) 1987 AIR 558 2. Uttam Vs. Saubhag Singh Ors (SC) Civil Appeal No. 2360 of 2016. 3. Shiv Vallabhdas Modhani Vs. CIT (MP-HC) 138 ITR 673 4. Ravi Shanker Sharma Vs. Kaliram Sharma Ors (Delhi HC) 5. Surender Kumar Vs. Dhaniram Ors (Delhi-HC) CS(OS) No. 1737/2012 9.1 Ld. Counsel for the assessee, therefore, submitted that returns filed by the assessees in their individual capacity should be considered and accepted. 10. Ld. DR, on other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below and furnished before us the guidelines of CBDT on assessments of HUF and how the property of HUF should be assessed. He also placed reliance upon the following decisions in support of his contention: 1. Smt. Gousai Begum Shri Mirza Mustafa Baig Vs. DCIT, 18 Taxmann.com 152 (Hyd.), dt. 16/11/2011 2. CIT Vs. smt. Anjana Sehgal (P H HC), ITA No. 276 of 2004 3. Bolla Ramaiah (AP HC), 39 Taxmann 345, dated 26/03/1987. 4. GK Devrajulu, (Madras HC), 56 T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 6 of Hindu Succession Act and a partition is effected by operation of law immediately before his death and in this partition, all the coparceners and the Hindu Male s widow get a share in the joint family property. On the application of section 8 of the Act, it was held that such property would devolve only by intestacy and not survivorship. It was also held that after the joint family property has been distributed in accordance with section 8 on the principles of intestacy, the joint family property ceases to be joint family property in the hands of the various persons who have succeeded to it as they hold the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants. 11.4 Thus, the above decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court on the inheritance of property of an individual who dies intestate, after the introduction of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, hold that on the death of the Hindu Male, the property devolves on the heirs in their individual capacity and ceases to be the HUF property. Respectfully following said decision, we hold that the property inherited by the respective assessees is their individual property and, therefore, the capital gains, if any, is exigibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
