2007 (8) TMI 320

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... J.- The Revenue has approached this court by invoking the appellate jurisdiction under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "the Act") and has challenged the order dated September 29, 2004, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench A, Delhi, passed in ITA No. 200/Del/04 for the assessment year 1996-97. The Revenue has claimed that the following substantial ques .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 3. He filed his return in the status of "individual" declaring his net income of Rs. 8,50,981. The assessee in the computation of income enclosed with the return, declared the gross capital gain at Rs. 84,13,988 and after claiming deduction under sections 54B and 54F of the Act at Rs. 61,96,375 and Rs.15,03,000, respectively, net capital gain was worked out at Rs. 7,14,613.  The assessment .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fied in treating the status of the assessee as "HUF" as against "individual". 4. On further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, it was held that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was null and void because notice dated January 12, 2004, issued to the assessee under section 148 of the Act was without intimating his status to be HUF. The operative part of the order passed by th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ough this letter the assessee has categorically stated that the land was acquired through a court decree, therefore, the status is shown as 'individual'." 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that firm findings of fact have been recorded by the Tribunal holding that the assessee did not make any statement about the status of HUF in the letter dated March 14, 2002, on which t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the hands of HUF. We are fortified in our view by the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. K. Adinarayana Murty [1967] 65 ITR 607. Therefore, we do not find that any question of law much less a substantial question of law would arise for our determination. 6. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgement .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X