TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... having any nucleus till assessment year 1998- 99. The properties purchased by individual in their individual name and from the individual source of income cannot be treated as property of HUF. Even the assessee could not prove any nucleus. Once this is the position, as the assessee is unable to prove its case, it is presumed that it has rightly been held that these properties belong to these two individuals i.e., Smt. Bhavani Mahadevan and Shri R. Mahadevan in their individual capacity and not of the HUF. PCIT s finding is supported by evidences that these properties by Smt.Bhavani Mahadevan and Shri R. Mahadevan are all in their individual capacities purchased in the year during 1994 1995. There is no evidence that these properties w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear 2012-13 u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 12.03.2015. 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the revision order passed u/s.263 of the Act, by the PCIT without jurisdiction and holding that the original asset in question was not of HUF and therefore directed the AO for clubbing as per provisions of section 64(2)(b) of the Act. For this assessee has filed following six concise grounds:- 1. The Ld. Principal Commissioner s order u/s.263 of the Act is without jurisdiction and he has erred both in law and on facts, and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 2. The Ld. Principal Commissioner has failed to appreciate that the original assets in question were in fact purchased from the funds of the assessee HUF, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Bhavani Mahadevan. Out of marital knot, karta has two daughters. It was claimed by assessee that the assessee HUF, through various loans purchased land at Plot No.94, ARN Nagar, Korattur by way of sale deed dated 14.07.1994 in the name of Smt. Bhavani Mahadevan and land at Plot No.II, VGN Avenue, Sennerkuppam Village by way of sale deed dated 03.08.1995 in the name of Smt. Bhavani Mahadevan. It was claimed that the assessee HUF also purchased land at Plot No.1, VGN Avenue, Sennerkuppam Village by way of sale deed dated 09.10.1995 in the name of Shri R. Mahadevan. It was claimed that the assessee HUF had always intended the original assets, the above referred assets purchased in 1994 1995 to be part of the properties belonging to the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act by the AO dated 12.03.2015 as erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The assessee contested this claim and stated that these three properties sold by the assessee are of HUF and the long term capital gain arising out of sale of these properties is invested in purchase of residential house at Abiramapuram and claimed deduction u/s.54F of the Act. 4. The PCIT was not convinced with the reply of assessee and he noted that the assessee has earned long term capital gain on account of sale of following three properties of individual Smt. Bhavani Mahadevan and Shri R. Mahadevan :- (i) House site of 1897 sq.feet at Sennerkuppam Village, Poonamallee purchased on 09/10/1995 R. Mahadevan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their individual capacity. If it were treated that the impugned properties were brought into the common HUF hotchpot and thereafter sold by the HUF, as per the provisions of S.64(2)(b), the liability to tax arises in the hands of the individuals. If the scheme of contributing to the HUF hotchpot is not taken into consideration, then the properties sold are that of the individuals. Either way, the taxation of LTCG and allowance of deduction u/s.54F in the hands of the assessee- HUF is not in accordance with law and allowing the same in the assessment order has resulted in an erroneous order, which is also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, ld.counsel for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dividuals as mentioned above in the year 1994 1995, well before the formation of HUF which was only in AY 1999-2000. It was stated in its reply that the properties were thrown into HUF during assessment year 1999-2000 and therefore, the provisions of section 64(2)(b) of the Act are applicable. The ld.counsel for the assessee before us stated that the returns of income of HUF were filed for assessment year 1998- 99 and the statement of affairs were filed from assessment year 2002-03 with the Department. The ld.counsel for the assessee mainly harped on the fact that he got married on 07.07.1975 and HUF is formed on that very date. We may agree that the HUF might have formed on the day they got married but what is the nucleus available with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
