Alugaddala Kistaiah Pandu , Secunnderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(5), Hyderabad

ITA 1778/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4354 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 29-04-2021
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP MEHTADR
• Assessee Lawyers: VISHAL GUPTA VAKKALAGADDA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 50C; 133(6); 195; 148

Judgement Text

ITA NO 1778 OF 2019 ALUGADDALA KISTAIA H PANDU SECUNDERABAD PAGE 1 OF 12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD SMC BENCH, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1778/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SRI ALUGADDALA KISTAIAH PANDU, SECUNDERABAD PAN:BFVPP3554H VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 10(5) HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI VISHAL GUPTA VAKKALAGADDA REVENUE BY : SRI SANDEEP MEHTA,DR DATE OF HEARING: 29/04/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28/05/2021 ORDER THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 2010-11 AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-6, HYDERABAD, DATED 14.10. 2019. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE INDIVIDUAL HAS SOLD PROPERTY VIDE DOCUMENT NO.457/2009 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.32,21,000/- D URING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y 2010-11; WHEREAS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS PER STAMP VALUATION AUTHOR ITY WAS RS.43,80,000/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED HI S RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BELIEVED THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 24.03.2017. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS PROJECT ING LOSS ON SALE ITA NO 1778 OF 2019 ALUGADDALA KISTAIA H PANDU SECUNDERABAD PAGE 2 OF 12 OF THE PROPERTY. THE DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE PR OPERTY WERE CALLED FOR FROM THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO FROM THE LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OF FICER OBSERVED THAT THE DOCUMENT NO.457/2009 WAS REGISTERED ON 8.4 .2009 WITH REGARD TO THE SALE OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND THAT TILL 28.1.2009, ONLY LEASEHOLD RIGHTS WERE WITH THE ASSESSEE. HE OB SERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED LEASE RIGHTS OVER THE PROPERT Y ON 30.6.1950 BY VIRTUE OF SETTLEMENT AND ARRANGEMENT DEED DATED 30.06.1950 AND CONSEQUENT TO THE DEMISE OF HIS FATHER IN THE Y EAR 1955, THE ASSESSEE, HIS MOTHER AND TWO SISTERS WERE LEFT BEHI ND AS HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERV ED THAT THE ASSESSEES MOTHER AND TWO SISTERS GAVE NO OBJECTION FOR CONVERSION OF THE LEASE HOLD RIGHTS TO FREE HOLD RIGHTS OVER T HE PROPERTY AS ALSO THE CONVEYANCE OF THE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ESTATE OFFICER, SECUNDERABAD, VIDE CONVEYANCE DEED DOCUMENT NO.452/2009, DATED 28.01.2009 HAS CON VERTED THE LEASEHOLD RIGHTS TO FREE HOLD RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A CONSIDERATION OF A SUM OF RS.50,400/-. THE AS SESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT PRIOR TO CONVERSION OF LEASEHOLD RIGH TS INTO FREEHOLD RIGHTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD NO RIGHT TO SELL THE PROPE RTY AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE BECAME THE ABSOLUTE OWNER O F THE PROPERTY ON 28.01.2009 ONLY. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON A/C OF THE SALE WAS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE AS SESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT ONLY OTHER EXPENDITURE I NCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSFER OF THE LAN D WAS THE FEE PAID BY HIM FOR CONVERSION OF LEASEHOLD RIGHTS INTO FREEHOLD RIGHT WHICH IS TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,07,439/- WHICH WAS PAI D ON 19.01.2009. ACCORDINGLY, HE ALLOWED THE SAME AND AF TER APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, HE COMPUT ED THE SHORT- TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.40,72,561/- AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX. ITA NO 1778 OF 2019 ALUGADDALA KISTAIA H PANDU SECUNDERABAD PAGE 3 OF 12 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT (A) CONTENDING THAT THE PROPERTY WAS A HUF PROP ERTY AND THEREFORE, THE CAPITAL GAIN HAS ARISEN IN THE HANDS OF THE HUF AND NOT THE ASSESSEE INDIVIDUAL. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN WHICH HAS ARISEN IS NOT SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAI N, BUT IT IS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND FURTHER THAT THE SRO VALUE AS ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT OF SALE IS TO BE CONSIDERED AND NOT THE S RO VALUE AS ON THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED. HE ALSO CONT ENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND AND ALSO COST OF THE BUI LDING THEREON WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN. THE CIT (A) GRANT ED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE GAIN FROM THE S ALE OF PROPERTY IS LTCG AND NOT STCG. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE FAI R MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1.4.1981 HAS TO BE CONS IDERED AT RS.100/- PER SQ. YARD AND NOT THE INDEXED COST OF A CQUISITION AND FURTHER THAT THE SAID COST HAS TO BE ALLOWED ALONG WITH COST OF IMPROVEMENT WHICH WAS ALREADY ALLOWED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. 5. AS REGARDS THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH T HE CAPITAL GAIN HAS TO BE TAXED AND ALSO THE SRO VALUE AS ON THE DATE OF SALE OF THE PROPERTY OR AGREEMENT OF SALE IS CON CERNED, THE CIT (A) HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE IS I N SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUND S OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS AND BAD I N LAW TO THE EXTENT PREJUDICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) GRO SSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSING THE CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF PROPERTY IN INDIVIDUAL STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS OWNED BY THE HU F HAVING BEEN INHERITED/SUCCEEDED BY THE ASSESSEE PRI OR TO THE INTRODUCTION OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERR ED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO EXISTENCE OF HUF AT ALL, WHEN THE ITA NO 1778 OF 2019 ALUGADDALA KISTAIA H PANDU SECUNDERABAD PAGE 4 OF 12 HUF HAD COME INTO EXISTENCE AUTOMATICALLY BY OPERAT ION OF LAW THEN PREVAILING. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT REFERRING THE SOLD PROPERTY TO THE VALUATION OFFICER U/S 50C(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, MERELY FOR THE REASON THAT THE SAID RIGHT WAS NOT EXERCISED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE ADOPTED THE VALUE OF THE SOLD PROPERTY AS ON 1.4.1981 BASED ON THE VALUATION OF T HE REGISTERED VALUER. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN TAKING THE VALUE O F SOME OTHER PROPERTY AS THE BASIS FOR ARRIVING AT THE VAL UE OF THE SOLD PROPERTY AS ON 1.4.1981. 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE ALTERNATE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE TO ADOPT THE DEEMED VALUE OF THE PROPE RTY AS ON THE DATE OF SALE AGREEMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE VEND EES AS AGAINST ON THE DATE OF SALE DEED ADOPTED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER U/S 50C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 8. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD RECEIVED SUBSTANTIAL ADVANCE SALE CONSIDERATION BY WAY OF CHEQUES BY VIRTUE OF THE SALE AGREEMENT ENTERED INT O MUCH PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SALE DEED, HENCE VALUE AS ON T HE DATE OF SALE AGREEMENT IS APPLICABLE FOR INVOKING THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 9. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE FIRST A ND SECOND PROVISO TO SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 50C OF I.T. A CT, 1961 IS A BENEFICIAL PROVISION, TO BE INTERPRETED LIBERALLY A ND COULD BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO THE SALE TRANSACTION DURIN G THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 10. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ALTER, AMEND OR D ELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND/OR TO ADD ANY FR ESH GROUND(S) OF APPEAL OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE AP PEAL. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW MY ATTENTION TO THE SALE DEED/CONVEYANCE DEED DATED 8. 4.2009 TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED PROPERTY FROM HIS FATHER IN 1955 I.E. EVEN PRIOR TO THE PROMULGATION OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT IN 1956. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS ITA NO 1778 OF 2019 ALUGADDALA KISTAIA H PANDU SECUNDERABAD PAGE 5 OF 12 A MALE HINDU AND HAD INHERITED THE PROPERTY PRIOR T O COMING INTO FORCE OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT 1956, AUTOMATICALLY H E BECAME A MEMBER OF HUF AND ACCORDINGLY THE PROPERTY OF THE A SSESSEE HAS BECOME HUF PROPERTY AND IT CONTINUED TO BE SO TILL IT WAS TRANSFERRED BY WAY OF AGREEMENT OF SALE AND THEREAF TER EXECUTION OF SALE DEED DATED 8.4.2009. THEREFORE, ACCORDING T O HIM, THE INCOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF HU F AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE INDIVIDUAL. 7. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WHO HAVE DISCUSSED THE ISSUE ELABORATELY. 8. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES FATHER HAD RE CEIVED THIS PROPERTY IN 1950 BY VIRTUE OF FAMILY SETTLEMENT DEE D AND AFTER ASSESSEES FATHERS DEMISE IN 1955, THE PROPERTY WA S INHERITED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE POSITION OF THE EXISTENCE AND DEV OLVEMENT OF ANCESTRAL PROPERTIES ON THE HUF BEFORE AND AFTER TH E PROMULGATION OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT IN 1956 HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VINOD CHOPR A VS. VASUDEV CHOPRA AND ANOTHER IN CS(OS) NO.2588/2011 DATED 22. 3.2011. THE RELEVANT PARAS ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR REA DY REFERENCE: 4. I HAVE HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER THIS ASPECT I N THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF SUNNY (MINOR) & ANR. VS. R AJ SINGH & ORS., 225 (2015) DLT 211. IN THIS JUDGMENT, I HAVE HELD BY RE FERRING TO THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF YU DHISHTER VS. ASHOK KUMAR, (1987) 1 SCC 204 THAT INHERITANCE OF ANCESTR AL PROPERTY AFTER 1956 DOES NOT MEAN INHERITANCE IS OF AN HUF PROPERTY BUT INHERITANCE WILL BE AS A SELF ACQUIRED PROPERTY IN VIEW OF SECTION 8 OF TH E HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956. THE RELEVANT PARAS OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CAS E OF SUNNY (MINOR) & ANR. (SUPRA) ARE PARAS 6 TO 9 AND 14 AND WHICH PARA S READ AS UNDER:- 6. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NECESSARY TO REFER TO THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE ITA NO 1778 OF 2019 ALUGADDALA KISTAIA H PANDU SECUNDERABAD PAGE 6 OF 12 SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF YUDHISHTER VS. ASHOK K UMAR, (1987) 1 SCC 204 AND IN PARA 10 OF THE SAID JUDGMENT THE SUPREME COURT HAS MADE THE NECESSARY OBSERVATIONS WITH RESPECT TO WHEN HUF PRO PERTIES CAN BE SAID TO EXIST BEFORE PASSING OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1 956 OR AFTER PASSING OF THE ACT IN 1956. THIS PARA READS AS UNDER:- 10. THIS QUESTION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THIS COUR T IN COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, KANPUR AND ORS. V. CHANDER SEN AND ORS. MANU/SC/0265/1986MANU/SC/0265/1986 : [1986] 161 ITR 370(SC) WHERE ONE OF US (SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J) OBSERVED T HAT UNDER THE HINDU LAW, THE MOMENT A SON IS BORN, HE GETS A SHARE IN F ATHER'S PROPERTY AND BECOME PART OF THE COPARCENARY. HIS RIGHT ACCRUES T O HIM NOT ON THE DEATH OF THE FATHER OR INHERITANCE FROM THE FATHER BUT WI TH THE VERY FACT OF HIS BIRTH. NORMALLY, THEREFORE WHENEVER THE FATHER GETS A PROPERTY FROM WHATEVER SOURCE, FROM THE GRANDFATHER OR FROM ANY O THER SOURCE, BE IT SEPARATED PROPERTY OR NOT, HIS SON SHOULD HAVE A SH ARE IN THAT AND IT WILL BECOME PART OF THE JOINT HINDU FAMILY OF HIS SON AN D GRANDSON AND OTHER MEMBERS WHO FORM JOINT HINDU FAMILY WITH HIM. THIS COURT OBSERVED THAT THIS POSITION HAS BEEN AFFECTED BY SECTION 8 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 AND, THEREFORE, AFTER THE ACT, WHEN THE SON IN HERITED THE PROPERTY IN THE SITUATION CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 8, HE DOES NO T TAKE IT AS KAR OF HIS OWN UNDIVIDED FAMILY BUT TAKES IT IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. AT PAGES 577 TO 578 OF THE REPORT, THIS COURT DEALT WITH THE EFF ECT OF SECTION 6 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 AND THE COMMENTARY MADE BY MULLA, 15TH EDN. PAGES 924-926 AS WELL AS MAYNE'S ON HINDU LAW 12TH EDITION PAGES 918-919. SHRI BANERJI RELIED ON THE SAID OBSERVATIO NS OF MAYNE ON 'HINDU LAW', 12TH EDN. AT PAGES 918-919. THIS COURT OBSERV ED IN THE AFORESAID DECISION THAT THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, THE MADRAS HIGH COURT THE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AND THE AN DHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT APPEARED TO BE CORRECT AND WAS UNABLE TO ACCE PT THE VIEWS OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. TO THE SIMILAR EFFECT IS THE OB SERVATION OF LEARNED AUTHOR OF MAYNE'S HINDU LAW, 12TH EDN. PAGE 919. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO HOLD THAT PROPERTY WHICH DEVELOPED ON A HINDU UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 WOULD BE HUF IN HIS HAND VIS-A-VIS HIS OWN SONS. IF THAT BE THE POSITION THEN THE PROPERTY WHICH DEVELOPED UPON THE FATHER OF THE RESPONDENT I N THE INSTANT CASE ON THE DEMISE OF HIS GRANDFATHER COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE HUF PROPERTY. IF THAT IS SO, THEN THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS RIGHT IN HO LDING THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS A LICENSEE OF HIS FATHER IN RESPECT OF THE ANCE STRAL HOUSE. (EMPHASIS IS MINE) 7(I). AS PER THE RATIO OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF YUDHISHTER (SUPRA) AFTER PASSING OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 THE POSITION WHICH TRADITIONALLY EXISTED WITH RESPECT TO AN AUTOMATIC RIGHT OF A PERSON IN PROPERTIES INHERITED BY HIS PATERNAL PREDECESSORS-IN-INTEREST FROM THE LATTER S PATERNAL ANCESTORS UPTO THREE DEGREES ABOVE, HAS CO ME TO AN END. UNDER THE TRADITIONAL HINDU LAW WHENEVER A MALE ANCESTOR INHE RITED ANY PROPERTY FROM ANY OF HIS PATERNAL ANCESTORS UPTO THREE DEGREES AB OVE HIM, THEN HIS MALE LEGAL HEIRS UPTO THREE DEGREES BELOW HIM HAD A RIGHT IN T HAT PROPERTY EQUAL TO THAT OF THE PERSON WHO INHERITED THE SAME. PUTTING IT IN OT HER WORDS WHEN A PERSON A INHERITED PROPERTY FROM HIS FATHER OR GRANDFATHER O R GREAT GRANDFATHER THEN THE PROPERTY IN HIS HAND WAS NOT TO BE TREATED AS A SEL F-ACQUIRED PROPERTY BUT WAS TO BE TREATED AS AN HUF PROPERTY IN WHICH HIS SON, GRA NDSON AND GREAT GRANDSON HAD A RIGHT EQUAL TO A . AFTER PASSING OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956, THIS POSITION HAS UNDERGONE A CHANGE AND IF A PERSON AFT ER 1956 INHERITS A PROPERTY FROM HIS PATERNAL ANCESTORS, THE SAID PROPERTY IS N OT AN HUF PROPERTY IN HIS HANDS AND THE PROPERTY IS TO BE TAKEN AS A SELF-ACQ UIRED PROPERTY OF THE PERSON ITA NO 1778 OF 2019 ALUGADDALA KISTAIA H PANDU SECUNDERABAD PAGE 7 OF 12 WHO INHERITS THE SAME. THERE ARE TWO EXCEPTIONS TO A PROPERTY INHERITED BY SUCH A PERSON BEING AND REMAINING SELF-ACQUIRED IN HIS H ANDS, AND WHICH WILL BE EITHER AN HUF AND ITS PROPERTIES WAS EXISTING EVEN PRIOR TO THE PASSING OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 AND WHICH HINDU UNDI VIDED FAMILY CONTINUED EVEN AFTER PASSING OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 195 6, AND IN WHICH CASE SINCE HUF EXISTED AND CONTINUED BEFORE AND AFTER 1956, TH E PROPERTY INHERITED BY A MEMBER OF AN HUF EVEN AFTER 1956 WOULD BE HUF PROPE RTY IN HIS HANDS TO WHICH HIS PATERNAL SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST UPTO THE THREE DEGREES WOULD HAVE A RIGHT. THE SECOND EXCEPTION TO THE PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF A PERSON BEING NOT SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY BUT AN HUF PROPERTY IS IF AF TER 1956 A PERSON WHO OWNS A SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY THROWS THE SELF-ACQUIRED P ROPERTY INTO A COMMON HOTCHPOTCH WHEREBY SUCH PROPERTY OR PROPERTIES THRO WN INTO A COMMON HOTCHPOTCH BECOME JOINT HINDU FAMILY PROPERTIES/HUF PROPERTIES. IN ORDER TO CLAIM THE PROPERTIES IN THIS SECOND EXCEPTION POSIT ION AS BEING HUF/JOINT HINDU FAMILY PROPERTIES/PROPERTIES, A PLAINTIFF HAS TO ESTABLISH TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COURT THAT WHEN (I.E DATE AND Y EAR) WAS A PARTICULAR PROPERTY OR PROPERTIES THROWN IN COMMON HOTCHPOTCH AND HENCE HUF/JOINT HINDU FAMILY CREATED. (II) THIS POSITION OF LAW ALONGWITH FACTS AS TO HOW THE PROPERTIES ARE HUF PROPERTIES WAS REQUIRED TO BE STATED AS A POSITIVE STATEMENT IN THE PLAINT OF THE PRESENT CASE, BUT IT IS SEEN THAT EXCEPT UTTERING A MANTRA OF THE PROPERTIES INHERITED BY DEFENDANT NO.1 BEING ANCESTRAL PROPERTIES AND THUS THE EXISTENCE OF HUF, THERE IS NO STATEMENT OR A SINGLE AVERMENT IN THE PLAINT AS TO WHEN WAS THIS HUF WHICH IS STATED TO OWN THE HUF PROPERTIES CAME INTO EXISTENCE OR WAS CREATED IE WHETHER IT EXISTED EVEN BEFORE 1956 OR I T WAS CREATED FOR THE FIRST TIME AFTER 1956 BY THROWING THE PROPERTY/PROPERTIES INTO A COMMON HOTCHPOTCH. THIS ASPECT AND RELATED ASPECTS IN DETAIL I AM DISC USSING HEREINAFTER. 8(I). A REFERENCE TO THE PLAINT SHOWS THAT FIRSTLY IT IS STATED THAT SH. TEK CHAND WHO IS THE FATHER OF THE DEFENDANT NO.1 (AND GRANDF ATHER OF SH. HARVINDER SEJWAL AND DEFENDANTS NO.2 TO 4) INHERITED VARIOUS ANCESTRAL PROPERTIES WHICH BECAME THE BASIS OF THE JOINT HINDU FAMILY PROPERTI ES OF THE PARTIES AS STATED IN PARA 15 OF THE PLAINT. IN LAW THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ANCESTRAL PROPERTY/PROPERTIES AND THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY PROPERTY/PROPERTIES FOR THE PRE 1956 AND POST 1956 POSITION AS STATED ABOVE BECAUSE INHERITANCE OF ANCESTRAL PROPERTIES PRIOR TO 1956 MADE SUCH PROPER TIES HUF PROPERTIES IN THE HANDS OF THE PERSON WHO INHERITS THEM, BUT IF ANCES TRAL PROPERTIES ARE INHERITED BY A PERSON AFTER 1956, SUCH INHERITANCE IN THE LAT TER CASE IS AS SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTIES UNLESS OF COURSE IT IS SHOWN IN THE LATT ER CASE THAT HUF EXISTED PRIOR TO 1956 AND CONTINUED THEREAFTER. IT IS NOWHERE PLE ADED IN THE PLAINT THAT WHEN DID SH. TEK CHAND FATHER OF SH. GUGAN SINGH EXPIRE BECAUSE IT IS ONLY IF SH. TEK CHAND FATHER OF SH. GUGAN SINGH/DEFENDANT NO.1 HAD EXPIRED BEFORE 1956 ONLY THEN THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS INHERITED BY SH. G UGAN SINGH FROM HIS FATHER SH. TEK CHAND WOULD BEAR THE CHARACTER OF HUF PROPE RTY IN THE HANDS OF SH. GUGAN SINGH SO THAT HIS PATERNAL SUCCESSORS-IN- INT EREST BECAME CO-PARCENERS IN AN HUF. EVEN IN THE EVIDENCE LED ON BEHALF OF THE P LAINTIFFS, AND WHICH IS A SINGLE AFFIDAVIT BY WAY OF EVIDENCE FILED BY THE MO THER OF THE PLAINTIFFS SMT. POONAM AS PW1, NO DATE IS GIVEN OF THE DEATH OF SH. TEK CHAND THE GREAT GRANDFATHER OF THE PLAINTIFFS. IN THE PLAINT EVEN T HE DATE OF THE DEATH OF THE GRANDFATHER OF THE PLAINTIFFS SH. GUGAN SINGH IS MI SSING. AS ALREADY STATED ABOVE, THE DATES/YEARS OF THE DEATH OF SH. TEK CHAN D AND SH. GUGAN SINGH WERE VERY MATERIAL AND CRUCIAL TO DETERMINE THE AUT OMATIC CREATION OF HUF BECAUSE IT IS ONLY IF SH. TEK CHAND DIED BEFORE 195 6 AND SH. GUGAN SINGH INHERITED THE PROPERTIES FROM SH. TEK CHAND BEFORE 1956 THAT THE PROPERTIES IN ITA NO 1778 OF 2019 ALUGADDALA KISTAIA H PANDU SECUNDERABAD PAGE 8 OF 12 THE HANDS OF SH. GUGAN SINGH WOULD HAVE THE STAMP O F HUF PROPERTIES. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PLEADING OR EVIDEN CE AS TO THE DATE OF THE DEATH OF SH. TEK CHAND AND CONSEQUENTLY INHERITING OF THE PROPERTIES OF SH. TEK CHAND BY SH. GUGAN SINGH, IT CANNOT BE HELD THA T SH. GUGAN SINGH INHERITED THE PROPERTIES OF SH. TEK CHAND PRIOR TO 1956. (II) IN FACT, ON A QUERY PUT TO THE COUNSELS FOR TH E PARTIES, COUNSELS FOR PARTIES STATE BEFORE THIS COURT THAT SH. GUGAN SINGH EXPIRE D IN THE YEAR 2008 WHEREAS SH. TEK CHAND DIED IN 1982. THEREFORE, IF SH. TEK C HAND DIED IN 1982, INHERITING OF PROPERTIES BY SH. GUGAN SINGH FROM SH . TEK CHAND WOULD BE SELF- ACQUIRED IN THE HANDS OF SH. GUGAN SINGH IN VIEW OF THE RATIO OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF YUDHISTER (SUPRA) INASMUCH AS THERE IS NO CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFS OF HUF EXISTING BEFORE 1956 OR HAVING BE EN CREATED AFTER 1956 BY THROWING OF PROPERTY/PROPERTIES INTO COMMON HOTCHPO TCH EITHER BY SH. TEK CHAND OR BY SH. GUGAN SINGH/DEFENDANT NO.1. THERE I S NOT EVEN A WHISPER IN THE PLEADINGS OF THE PLAINTIFFS, AS ALSO IN THE AFF IDAVIT BY WAY OF EVIDENCE FILED IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CASE OF PW1 SMT. POONAM, AS TO THE SPECIFIC DATE/PERIOD/MONTH/YEAR OF CREATION OF AN HUF BY SH. TEK CHAND OR SH. GUGAN SINGH AFTER 1956 THROWING PROPERTIES INTO COMMON HO TCHPOTCH. (III) THE POSITION OF HUF OTHERWISE EXISTING COULD ONLY BE IF IT WAS PROVED ON RECORD THAT IN THE LIFETIME OF SH. TEK CHAND A HIND U UNDIVIDED FAMILY BEFORE 1956 EXISTED AND THIS HUF OWNED PROPERTIES INCLUDE THE PROPERTY BEARING NO.93, VILLAGE ADHICHINI, HAUZ KHAS. HOWEVER, A REF ERENCE TO THE AFFIDAVIT BY WAY OF EVIDENCE FILED BY PW1 DOES NOT SHOW ANY AVER MENTS MADE AS TO ANY HUF EXISTING OF SH. TEK CHAND, WHETHER THE SAME BE PRE 1956 OR AFTER 1956. ONLY A SELF-SERVING STATEMENT HAS BEEN MADE OF PROP ERTIES OF SH. GUGAN SINGH BEING ANCESTRAL IN HIS HANDS, HAVING BEEN INHERITED BY HIM FROM SH . TEK CHAND, AND WHICH STATEMENT, AS STATED ABOVE, DOES N OT IN LAW MEAN THAT THE ANCESTRAL PROPERTY IS AN HUF PROPERTY. 9. ONUS OF IMPORTANT ISSUES SUCH AS ISSUE NOS.1 AND 2 CANNOT BE DISCHARGED BY ORAL SELF-SERVING AVERMENTS IN DEPOSITION, ONCE THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFS IS DENIED BY THE DEFENDANTS, AND WHO HAVE ALSO FILED A FFIDAVIT OF DW1 SH.RAM KUMAR/DEFENDANT NO.2 IN THE AMENDED MEMO OF PARTIES FOR DENYING THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFS. AN HUF, AS ALREADY STATED ABOVE, CO ULD ONLY HAVE BEEN CREATED BY SHOWING CREATION OF HUF AFTER 1956 BY THROWING P ROPERTY/PROPERTIES IN COMMON HOTCHPOTCH OR EXISTING PRIOR TO 1956, AND ON CE THERE IS NO PLEADING OR EVIDENCE ON THESE ASPECTS, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT A NY HUF EXISTED OR WAS CREATED EITHER BY SH. TEK CHAND OR SH. GUGAN SINGH. IN MY OPINION, THEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS HAVE MISERABLY FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE O NUS OF PROOF WHICH WAS UPON THEM THAT THERE EXISTED AN HUF AND ITS PROPERTIES, AND THE PLAINTIFFS MUCH LESS HAVE PROVED ON RECORD THAT ALL/ANY PROPERTIES AS ME NTIONED IN PARA 15 OF THE PLAINT ARE/WERE HUF PROPERTIES. 14. PLAINTIFFS THUS HAVE FAILED TO PROVE THAT THERE EXISTED AN HUF BEFORE 1956 ON ACCOUNT OF SH. TEK CHAND HAVING INHERITED PROPER TIES BEFORE 1956 AND THAT THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE FURTHER FAILED TO PROVE THAT HU F WAS CREATED AFTER 1956 ON ACCOUNT OF THROWING OF PROPERTY/PROPERTIES INTO COM MON HOTCHPOTCH EITHER BY SH. TEK CHAND OR BY SH. GUGAN SINGH/DEFENDANT NO.1. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD THAT THERE IS NO HUF AND THERE ARE NO PROPERTIES OF HUF IN WHICH LATE SH. HARVINDER SEJWAL HAD A SHARE. THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION GIVEN ABOVE FOR EXISTENCE/CREATION OF HUF AND PLAINTIFFS FAILING TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF PROOF UPON THEM WILL SIMILARLY APPLY QUA THE ALLEGED FAMI LY SETTLEMENT PLEADED BY THE PLAINTIFFS BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN NO CREDIBLE EVIDE NCE HAS BEEN LED EXCEPT SELF- ITA NO 1778 OF 2019 ALUGADDALA KISTAIA H PANDU SECUNDERABAD PAGE 9 OF 12 SERVING STATEMENTS AND WHICH CANNOT BE TAKEN AS DIS CHARGE OF THE ONUS. IN HIS CROSS-EXAMINATION ON 01.04.2013, THE DEFENDANT NO.3 AS DW1 HAS DENIED THE SUGGESTION THAT THERE WAS ANY FAMILY SETTLEMENT. IT IS THEREFORE HELD THAT PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO PROVE ISSUE NOS.1 AND 2.' 5. CLEARLY THEREFORE, MERE AVERMENT OF PROPERTY BEI NG ANCESTRAL PROPERTY WILL NOT GIVE PLAINTIFF-A GRANDSON A RIGHT TO THE PROPER TY ONCE THE FATHER DEFENDANT NO.1/SH. VASUDEV CHOPRA IS ALIVE AND WHO ADMITTEDLY INHERITED THE PROPERTY ON THE DEATH OF LATE SH. TARA CHAND CHOPRA AS A SOLE L EGAL HEIR OF LATE SH. TARA CHAND CHOPRA AND THUS AS A SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY O F SH. VASUDEV CHOPRA. 6. THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SUNNY (MINOR) & ORS HAS BEEN REFERRED AND FOLLOWED BY ME IN THE LATER CASE OF SH. SURENDER KU MAR VS. SH. DHANI RAM AND OTHERS, 227 (2016) DLT 217. THE RELEVANT PARAS OF T HIS JUDGMENT ARE PARAS 4, 5, 7 AND 9 AND WHICH READ AS UNDER:- '4. PLAINTIFF CLAIMS THAT AS A SON OF DEFENDANT NO. 1 AND AS A GRANDSON OF LATE SH. JAGE RAM, PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO HIS SHARE AS A C OPARCENER IN THE AFORESAID SUIT PROPERTIES ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROPERTIES WHEN T HEY WERE INHERITED BY LATE SH. JAGE RAM WERE JOINT FAMILY PROPERTIES, AND THEREFOR E, STATUS AS SUCH OF THESE PROPERTIES AS HUF PROPERTIES HAVE CONTINUED THEREBY ENTITLING THE PLAINTIFF HIS RIGHTS IN THE SAME AS A COPARCENER. 5. THE SUPREME COURT AROUND 30 YEARS BACK IN THE JU DGMENT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, KANPUR AND OTHERS VS. C HANDER SEN AND OTHERS, (1986) 3 SCC 567, HELD THAT AFTER PASSING OF THE HI NDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 THE TRADITIONAL VIEW THAT ON INHERITANCE OF AN IMMOVABL E PROPERTY FROM PATERNAL ANCESTORS UP TO THREE DEGREES, AUTOMATICALLY AN HUF CAME INTO EXISTENCE, NO LONGER REMAINED THE LEGAL POSITION IN VIEW OF SECTI ON 8 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956. THIS JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF CHANDER SEN (SUPRA) WAS THEREAFTER FOLLOWED BY THE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF YUDHISHTER VS. ASHOK KUMAR, (1987) 1 SCC 204 WHEREIN THE SUPRE ME COURT REITERATED THE LEGAL POSITION THAT AFTER COMING INTO FORCE OF SECT ION 8 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956, INHERITANCE OF ANCESTRAL PROPERTY AFTER 1956 DOES NOT CREATE AN HUF PROPERTY AND INHERITANCE OF ANCESTRAL PROPERTY AFTE R 1956 THEREFORE DOES NOT RESULT IN CREATION OF AN HUF PROPERTY . 7. ON THE LEGAL POSITION WHICH EMERGES PRE 1956 I.E BEFORE PASSING OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 AND POST 1956 I.E AFTER PASSIN G OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956, THE SAME HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY ME RECENTLY I N THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SUNNY (MINOR) & ANR. VS. SH. RAJ SINGH & ORS., C S(OS) NO.431/2006 DECIDED ON 17.11.2015. IN THIS JUDGMENT, I HAVE REFERRED TO AND RELIED UPON THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF YU DHISHTER (SUPRA) AND HAVE ESSENTIALLY ARRIVED AT THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS:- (I) IF A PERSON DIES AFTER PASSING OF THE HINDU SUC CESSION ACT, 1956 AND THERE IS NO HUF EXISTING AT THE TIME OF THE DEATH OF SUCH A PERSON, INHERITANCE OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF SUCH A PERSON BY HIS SUCCESSO RS-IN-INTEREST IS NO DOUBT INHERITANCE OF AN ANCESTRAL PROPERTY BUT THE INHERITANCE IS AS A SELF- ACQUIRE D PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THE SUCCESSOR AND NOT AS A N HUF PROPERTY ALTHOUGH THE SUCCESSOR(S) INDEED INHERITS ANCESTRAL PROPERTY I.E A PROPERTY BELONGING TO HIS PATERNAL ANCESTOR. (II) THE ONLY WAY IN WHICH A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY /JOINT HINDU FAMILY CAN COME INTO EXISTENCE AFTER 1956 (AND WHEN A JOINT HI NDU FAMILY DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO 1956) IS IF AN INDIVIDUAL S PROPERTY IS THROWN INTO A COMMON HOTCHPOTCH. ALSO , ONCE A PROPERTY IS THROWN INTO A COMMON HOTCHPOTCH, IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE ITA NO 1778 OF 2019 ALUGADDALA KISTAIA H PANDU SECUNDERABAD PAGE 10 OF 12 EXACT DETAILS OF THE SPECIFIC DATE/MONTH/YEAR ETC O F CREATION OF AN HUF FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THROWING A PROPERTY INTO A COMMON HOT CHPOTCH HAVE TO BE CLEARLY PLEADED AND MENTIONED AND WHICH REQUIREMENT IS A LE GAL REQUIREMENT BECAUSE OF ORDER VI RULE 4 CPC WHICH PROVIDES THAT ALL NECESSA RY FACTUAL DETAILS OF THE CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE CLEARLY STATED. THUS, IF AN HUF PROPERTY EXISTS BECAUSE OF ITS SUCH CREATION BY THROWING OF SELF- ACQUIRED PRO PERTY BY A PERSON IN THE COMMON HOTCHPOTCH, CONSEQUENTLY THERE IS ENTITLEMEN T IN COPARCENERS ETC TO A SHARE IN SUCH HUF PROPERTY. (III) AN HUF CAN ALSO EXIST IF PATERNAL ANCESTRAL P ROPERTIES ARE INHERITED PRIOR TO 1956, AND SUCH STATUS OF PARTIES QUA THE PROPERTIES HAS CONTINUED AFTER 1956 WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTIES INHERITED PRIOR TO 1956 FROM PATERNAL ANCESTORS. ONCE THAT STATUS AND POSITION CONTINUES EVEN AFTER 1956; OF T HE HUF AND OF ITS PROPERTIES EXISTING; A COPARCENER ETC WILL HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE K PARTITION OF THE PROPERTIES. (IV) EVEN BEFORE 1956, AN HUF CAN COME INTO EXISTEN CE EVEN WITHOUT INHERITANCE OF ANCESTRAL PROPERTY FROM PATERNAL ANCESTORS, AS H UF COULD HAVE BEEN CREATED PRIOR TO 1956 BY THROWING OF INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY IN TO A COMMON HOTCHPOTCH. IF SUCH AN HUF CONTINUES EVEN AFTER 1956, THEN IN SUCH A CASE A COPARCENER ETC OF AN HUF WAS ENTITLED TO PARTITION OF THE HUF PROPERT Y. 9. I WOULD LIKE TO FURTHER NOTE THAT IT IS NOT ENOU GH TO AVER A MANTRA, SO TO SAY, IN THE PLAINT SIMPLY THAT A JOINT HINDU FAMILY OR HUF EXISTS. DETAILED FACTS AS REQUIRED BY ORDER VI RULE 4 CPC AS TO WHEN AND HOW THE HUF PROPERTIES HAVE BECOME HUF PROPERTIES MUST BE CLEARLY AND CATEGORIC ALLY AVERRED. SUCH AVERMENTS HAVE TO BE MADE BY FACTUAL REFERENCES QUA EACH PROPERTY CLAIMED TO BE AN HUF PROPERTY AS TO HOW THE SAME IS AN HUF PROPER TY, AND, IN LAW GENERALLY BRINGING IN ANY AND EVERY PROPERTY AS HUF PROPERTY IS INCORRECT AS THERE IS KNOWN TENDENCY OF LITIGANTS TO INCLUDE UNNECESSARIL Y MANY PROPERTIES AS HUF PROPERTIES, AND WHICH IS DONE FOR LESS THAN HONEST MOTIVES. WHEREAS PRIOR TO PASSING OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 THERE WAS A PRESUMPTION AS TO THE EXISTENCE OF AN HUF AND ITS PROPERTIES, BUT AFTER P ASSING OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956 IN VIEW OF THE RATIOS OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES OF CHANDER SEN (SUPRA) AND YUDHISHTER (SUPRA) THERE IS NO SUCH PRESUMPTION THAT INHERITANCE OF ANCESTRAL PROPERTY CREATES AN HUF, A ND THEREFORE, IN SUCH A POST 1956 SCENARIO A MERE IPSE DIXIT STATEMENT IN THE PL AINT THAT AN HUF AND ITS PROPERTIES EXIST IS NOT A SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF CREATION OR EXISTENCE OF HUF PROPERTIES INASMUCH AS IT IS NE CESSARY FOR EXISTENCE OF AN HUF AND ITS PROPERTIES THAT IT MUST BE SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT AS TO WHETHER THE HUF CAME INTO EXISTENCE BEFORE 1956 OR AFTER 1956 A ND IF SO HOW AND IN WHAT MANNER GIVING ALL REQUISITE FACTUAL DETAILS. IT IS ONLY IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE SPECIFIC FACTS ARE MENTIONED TO CLEARLY PLEAD A CAU SE OF ACTION OF EXISTENCE OF AN HUF AND ITS PROPERTIES, CAN A SUIT THEN BE FILED AN D MAINTAINED BY A PERSON CLAIMING TO BE A COPARCENER FOR PARTITION OF THE HU F PROPERTIES.' 7. IN VIEW OF THE RATIOS OF THE JUDGMENTS IN THE CA SES OF SUNNY (MINOR) & ANR. (SUPRA) AND SH. SURENDER KUMAR (SUPRA), PLAINTIFF O N THE ADMITTED FACTS AS STATED IN THE PLAINT HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION OR RIGHT TO CL AIM RELIEF FOR A SHARE IN THE SUIT PROPERTY WHICH IS INHERITED BY HIS FATHER SH.VASUDE V CHOPRA FROM PLAINTIFF S PATERNAL GRANDFATHER SH. TARA CHAND CHOPRA AS A SEL F ACQUIRED PROPERTY OF SH. VASUDEV CHOPRA. 9. THUS, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT PRIOR TO THE ENACTMENT OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, IN 1956, THE ANCESTRAL PROPER TY BECAME THE ITA NO 1778 OF 2019 ALUGADDALA KISTAIA H PANDU SECUNDERABAD PAGE 11 OF 12 HUF PROPERTY AND AFTER THE SAID ACT, THE ANCESTRAL PROPERTY BECOMES THE SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY OF THE PERSON ON WHOM IT DEVOLVES. IN THE CASE BEFORE ME CLEARLY, THE PROPER TY WAS INHERITED BY THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE IN 1952 AND WAS ALSO CONVEYED TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE DEATH OF HIS FATHER IN 1955, I.E. BEFORE COMING INTO FORCE OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1950. AC CORDINGLY, THE PROPERTY BELONGS TO THE HUF OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT TO THE ASSESSEE INDIVIDUAL. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R ITSELF IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 2 AND 3 ARE ALLOWED AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS SET ASIDE. SINC E THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF IS SET ASIDE, THE ADJUDICAT ION OF OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL BECOMES AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE. THE REFORE, I DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME AT THIS S TAGE AND THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL 4 TO 9 ARE NOT ADJUDICATED. 10. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH MAY, 2021. SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED MAY, 2021. VINODAN/SPS ITA NO 1778 OF 2019 ALUGADDALA KISTAIA H PANDU SECUNDERABAD PAGE 12 OF 12 COPY TO: S.NO ADDRESSES 1 SRI ALUGADDALA KISTAIAH PANDU, 9 - 3 - 754, KOTAIAH, REZIMENTAL BAZAR, SECUNDERABAD 500003 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 10(5) IT TOWERS, AC GUARD S, HYDERABAD 3 CIT (A)-6, HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT 6, HYDERABA D 5 DR, ITAT HYDERABAD BENCHES 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER