Satish Kumar Tyagi, Noida V. ITO, Noida

ITA 2895/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9297 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Assessee Lawyers: K P GARG
• Keywords: Gift; Bonafide belief
• Section: 143(3); 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI G BEN CH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2895/DEL/2017 [A.Y. 2012-13] SHRI SATISH KUMAR TYAGI, VS. ITO, WARD 3(3), S/O SH. VED PRAKASH, ] NOIDA 47, BHANGEL BEGUMPUR, GEGHA, PHASE-II, NOIDA DISTRICT GAUTAMBUDH NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH PAN : AAXPT1416A) [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.P. GARG, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI S.S. RANA, CIT(D R) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)- 1, NOIDA VIDE ORDER DATED 24.02.2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO BY TREATING THE INTEREST INCOME OF THE (HUF) SATISH TYAGI TO THAT OF THE IND IVIDUAL SATISH TYAGI. 2. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTI ON OF THE AO IN NOT ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT ON ACCOUNT OF DEATH OF SH. VED PRAKASH IN 1954 A NEW HUF CAME INTO EXISTENCE THAT OF HIS SON SATISH KUMAR AND THE INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION OF VED PRAKASH TYAGI (HUF) WAS RELEASED / DISTRIBUT ED / PAID TO THE 2 SMALLER HUF (COPARCENARIES). 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE AOS ORDER TO ASSESS THE BENEFIT DER IVED FROM THE ACQUISITION OF ANCESTRAL LAND IN THE HANDS OF SATIS H KUMAR (INDIVIDUAL) AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF SATISH KUMAR ( HUF) SEPARATELY. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DISMISSING THE CLAIM O F HUF, MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE VED PRAKASH (HUF) IN WHOSE NAME THE COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF ACQUISITION OF FAMILY AG RICULTURE LAND WAS RELEASED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER FILE D ITS INCOME TAX RETURN, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS NOT LIABLE TO TAX UNDER SECTION 10(37) OF I.T. ACT, 196 1 AND THE FAMILY HAD NO OTHER INCOME AT THAT TIME. 5. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE AOS ORDER IN NOT ACCEPTING THAT EAC H AND EVERY MEMBER BORN IN JOINT HINDU FAMILY ACQUIRES AN INTER EST IN HUF - (SUNIL KUMAR V. RAM PRAKASH- AIR 1988 SC 576) AND P ROPERTY INHERITED BY HINDU FROM HIS FATHER, FATHERS FATHER OR FATHERS FATHERS FATHER, IS ANCESTRAL PROPERTY- U.R.VIRUPAK SHAIAH VS SARVAMMA & ANR ON CIVIL APPEAL N0.7346 OF 2008 (ARI SING OUT OF SLP N0.11785 OF 2007) 6. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTING THAT THE IMPUGNED AGRICULTURE LAND WAS ANCESTRAL COPARCENARY PROPERTY PASSED ON FROM SHRI GHISA TO THE JOINT FAMILY OF SHRI FATEH SINGH( SON), SHRI VED PRAKASH (GRAND SON) AND SHRI SATISH KUMAR (GREAT GR AND SON). 7. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN 3 CONSIDERING THAT THE INTEREST INCOME HAS BEEN EARNE D BY THE ASSESSEE (INDIVIDUAL) AS PER FORM NO.26AS ON THE RE CORD OF THE AO WHEREBY TDS AMOUNTING TO RS4,40,595/- HAS BEEN SHOW N TO HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED IGNORING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESS EE THAT SINCE THERE WAS NO PAN ALLOTTED IN THE NAME OF SATISH KUM AR (HUF) THE INTEREST INCOME WAS CREDITED AND TDS WAS DEDUCTED U SING THE PAN OF SATISH KUMAR (INDIVIDUAL), HOWEVER, THE INTEREST INCOME BELONGED TO HUF AND NOT TO INDIVIDUAL. 8. THAT THE ID. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E ACTION OF THE AO IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT AFTER THE DEATH OF THE SOLE MEMBER SO LONG AS THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY OF THE JOIN T FAMILY REMAINS IN THE HANDS OF WIDOW OF THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY AND THE SAME IS NOT DIVIDED AMONGST THEM; THE JOINT HINDU FAMILY CO NTINUES TO EXIST. CIT VS. VEERAPA CHETTIAR, 76 ITR 467 (SC) 9. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMIN G THE ACTION OF THE AO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE BHUMI DHAR RIGHTS CREATED UNDER SECTION 18 OF UP ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT WERE THE NEW RIGHTS OF THE DECEASEDS S ON IN THE AGRICULTURE LAND WOULD DEPEND UPON WHETHER HE WAS B ORN BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE UP ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LA ND REFORMS ACT BECAME APPLICABLE TO THE AREA WHERE THE CONCERNED L AND WAS SITUATED. THEREFORE, IN CASE THE SON WAS BORN BEFOR E THE VESTING, HE BEING THE SON OF THE DECEASED WOULD BEFORE THAT DAT E ACQUIRES AN INTEREST BY BIRTH IN THE AGRICULTURE HOLDING OF THE HUF, BUT IN CASE HE WAS BORN AFTER THAT DATE, HE COULD NOT ACQUIRE A NY INTEREST IN THE BHUMIDHARI LAND OF THE DECEASED BY BIRTH. (CONTROLL ER OF ESTATE DUTY VS. SMT. SHIELA PRASAD (143 ITR 458)(ALL) 10. THAT THE LEARNED C1T (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS IN IGNORING SECTION 37 OF UP ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND L AND REFORMS ACT 4 WHICH CLEARLY PROVIDES FOR TREATING THE JOINT FAMIL Y AS A SEPARATE UNIT. 11. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN IGNORING THAT THE ORDER OF PARTITION OF A JOINT HIN DU FAMILY CAN BE PASSED BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY WHERE THE HUF I S ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX, AND WHERE THE FAMILY HAS ONLY AGRICULTU RE INCOME AND NOT LIABLE TO TAX, NO SUCH ORDER CAN BE PASSED U/S 171 OF THE ACT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESS EE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 18.3.2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,41,3 20/- SHOWING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 23.9.2013. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE AR OF TH E ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS AND FILED THE REPLIES. AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ONLY, WHEREAS P ER 26AS STATEMENT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF INTEREST AMOUNTING T O RS. 48,54,476.79 FROM TREASURY, PNB AND SYNDICATE BANK ON WHICH THER E WAS TDS OF RS. 4,86,990/-. NEITHER THIS INCOME WAS SHOWN IN THE RE TURN OF INCOME, NOR CLAIMED CREDIT OF TDS. AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S. 142 (1) OF THE ACT ON 29.12.2014 AND 9.1.2015 REQUIRING TO FURNISH DETAIL S OF INCOME FROM ALL SOURCES, AND DETAILS OF COMPENSATION AND INTEREST R ECEIVED THEREON DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ALSO REQUIR ED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE INTEREST INCOME BE NOT INCLUDED TOWARDS ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 8.1.2015 SUBMITTED THAT THE ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED IN VILLAGE 5 BHANGEL NOIDA WAS ACQUIRED BY NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA) IN 1989, AND THE COMPENSATION WAS AWARDED WAS INVESTED IN VARIOUS ASSETS. IT WAS FURTHER CLAIME D THAT SINCE THE LAND WAS ANCESTRAL WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS KAR TA OF THE HUF NAMELY SH. SATISH KUMAR TYAGI & OTHERS (HUF) AFTER THE DEA TH OF HIS FATHER SH. VED PRAKASH TYAGI IN 1954. THE LAND BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEES HUF, AND THEREFORE, THE COMPENSATION AND INTEREST RECEIVED O N ACQUISITION OF LAND BY THE GOVT. BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEES HUF. THE IS SUE WAS ADJUDICATED BY THE JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-3, NOI DA DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 BY PASSING THE ORDER DATED 23.2.2015 AND HELD THAT AO IS DIRECTED TO ASSESS THE BENEFITS DERIVED FROM THE ACQUISITION OF SAID ANCESTRAL LAND IN THE HANDS OF SH. SATISH KUMAR TYAGI (INDIVIDUAL), AND NOT IN THE HAN DS OF SHRI SATISH KUMAR TYAGI AND OTHERS (HUF), AS OFFERED. AFTER RE CEIPT OF THE ORDER DATED 23.2.2015 THE ASSESSEE WAS PROVIDED AN OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD VIDE NOTICE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION VIDE LETTER DATED 27.2.2015 AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE AO HELD THAT THE RE CEIPT OF INTEREST RECEIVED IS BEING CONSIDERED AND TAXED IN THE HANDS OF SH. SATISH KUMAR TYAGI (INDIVIDUAL) UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHE R SOURCES AND INTEREST RECEIVED ON COMPENSATION AT RS. 70,37,239/- WAS ADD ED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURC ES AND INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS (LONG-TERM) WORKS OU T AT RS. 15,41,886/- AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO IN TEREST FROM BANK AT 6 RS. 5,65,142/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES THUS, COMPUTED THE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 59,66,968/- U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT READ WIT H SECTION 144A OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 10.3.2015. 4. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, A SSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 2 4.2.2017 HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING T HAT THAT JOINT HINDU PROPERTY DOES NOT DEVOLVE ON HUF BY SUCCESSION AS I S BEING SOUGHT TO BE MADE OUT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. THE CORPUS OF THE HUF IS TO BE SPECIFICALLY CREATED AND ONLY WITH THE CREATION OF CORPUS AN HUF COMES INTO BEING. HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT NO EVIDENCE TO EVEN SUGGEST THAT THE CORPUS OF THE SAT ISH KUMAR, HUF WAS EVER CREATED NOR ANY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE SAID SATISH KUMAR, HUF WAS IN SUBSISTENCE AND H AD COME TO ACQUIRE THE LAND WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY THE STATE AND WHICH HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO TAX BY THE AO IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER A ND FINALLY HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING CREATION OF SU BSISTENCE OF THE SATISH KUMAR, HUF, IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND THE SAME WAS RE JECTED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE BHANGEL OF NO IDA BELONGING TO SHRI VED PRAKASH TYAGI & OTHERS (HUF) WAS ACQUIRED BY THE NO IDA IN 1989 AND THE COMPENSATION WAS AWARDED WHICH WAS INVESTED IN VARIOUS ASSETS. IN 7 THE YEAR 1954 SHRI VED PRAKASH TYAGI DIED AND SHRI SATISH KUMAR TYAGI BECAME THE KARTA OF THE HUF NAMELY SHRI SATISH KUMA R TYAGI & OTHERS (HUF) HAVING THE OTHER CO-PARCENERS, NAMELY SMT. MI THLESH TYAGI (WIFE) AND SHRI VARUN TYAGI (SON). NO INCOME TAX RETURN WA S FILED BY SHRI VED PRAKASH TYAGI AND OTHERS (HUF) FOR THE AY 1990-91 A S THE INCOME, BEING AGRICULTURAL WAS EXEMPT U/S 10(37) OF THE IT ACT 19 61. THE ABOVE SMALLER HUF NAMELY SHRI SATISH KUMAR TYAGI HUF RECE IVED INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO SHRI VED PRAKASH TYAGI & OTHERS (HUF) AMOUNTING TO RS.65,96,644 + TDS RS.4,4 0,595/-) = 70,37,239/-, ALONG WITH TWO HUFS OF HIS BROTHERS, S HRI NAVIN KUMAR TYAGI AND SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR TYAGI. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE RE WAS A MISCONCEPTION IN THE MIND OF THE ASSESSEE (SIMILAR TO THAT OF HIS BROTHERS) WHO IS A VILLAGER AND ILLITERATE THAT THIS INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION HAS BEEN PAID AS A RESULT OF ACQUISITI ON OF AGRICULTURE LAND ON WHICH NO INCOME TAX IS CHARGEABLE, HENCE NEITHER INCOME TAX RETURN WAS FILED NOR ANY PAN WAS GOT ALLOTTED BY THE ABOVE THREE HUFS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LATER THIS MISCONCEPTION HAD BEEN BROKEN AND IT HAS BEEN REALISED THAT THE HUFS SHOULD HAVE FILED T HEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS SEPARATELY FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A Y 2012-13. ACCORDINGLY RETURN OF THE HUF WAS FILED UNDER IDS AND TAX PAID, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ID. PR. CIT, NOIDA IN ALL THE THREE CASES. (EVIDENCE OF THE CURRENT ASSESSEE ENCLOSED HEREIN). THE INTEREST GRA NTED ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION WAS RELEASED IN THE INDIVID UAL NAMES AS THERE WAS NO PAN AVAILABLE/ALLOTTED IN THE STATUS OF HUF HAVING NO OTHER INCOME 8 EXCEPT AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND ALSO THERE WAS NO BA NK ACCOUNT IN HUF STATUS, AS IN THE OTHER TWO CASES. HE FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE ITO ASSESSED THIS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF SHRI SATISH KU MAR TYAGI, INDIVIDUAL AS IN THE CASES OF HIS BROTHERS SHRI NAVIN KUMAR TY AGI AND SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR TYAGI. THE ASSESSEE HEREIN FILED APPEAL BEFOR E CIT(A)-1 NOIDA, WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE SAME GROUNDS AS IN THE CASE OF SHRI NAVIN KUMAR TYAGI. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE FILED A PPEAL WITH ITAT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE IN ALL THESE THR EE APPEALS IS WHETHER THE INCOME OF THE HUF COULD BE TAXED IN THE HANDS O F THE INDIVIDUAL, WHICH HAS BEEN SETTLED BY ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR TYAGI AND FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF NAVIN KUMAR TYAGI. IT W AS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ITAT IN APPEAL NO.2745/DEL/2017, ORDER DAT ED 18-10-2017 IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR HELD: THAT THIS INCO ME IS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF RESPECTIVE HUF ONLY AND FURTHER CONFIRMING THAT THE RESPECTIVE HUFS HAVE ALREADY PAID THE TAXES UNDER IDS, SINCE I T WAS NOT PAID EARLIER. THE DECLARATION UNDER IDS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED WITHOUT DISPUTE. HENCE THE ITAT DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIV IDUAL AND UPHELD THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INCOME FROM INTEREST ON DELAYED COMPENSATION IS TAXABLE ONLY IN THE HANDS OF RESPECTIVE HUF. HE NCE, HE STATED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ITAT DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR TYAGI IN APPEAL NO.2745/DEL/2017 FOR AY 2012-13 (SUPRA) AND REQUESTED TO FOLLOW THE SAME AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED. 9 6.1 THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 32 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED THE COPY OF PAN OF SATISH KUMAR; FO RM 1 DECLARATION U/S. 183 IN RESPECT OF INCOME DECLARATION SCHEME 20 16 OF SATISH KUMAR TYAGI HUF ALONGWITH ANNEXURE; FORM 2 IN RESPET OF I NCOME DECLARATION SCHEME 2016, HUF, FORM 4 IN RESPET OF INCOME DECLAR ATION SCHEME 2016, HUF; COPYO F CHALLANS FOR PAYMENT OF TAX UNDER IDS BY THE HUF FOR AY 2017-18 FOR RS. 3,96,000/- TWO NOS. RS. 4,00,000/- 1 NO. AND RS. 3,92,000/-; ITAT E BENCH NEW DELHI ORDER DATED 8.3. 2018 IN THE CASE OF SH. NAVEEN KUMAR TYAGI FOR AY 2012-13; ITAT, NEW D ELHI SMC BENCH ORDER DATED 18.10.2017 IN THE CASE OF SH. ASHWANI K UMAR TYAGI FOR AY 2012-13 AND THE COPY OF WRITTEN SYNOPSIS. HE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY CO VERED BY THE DECISION OF THE SMC BENCH ORDER DATED 18.10.2017 IN THE CASE OF SH. ASHWANI KUMAR TYAGI FOR AY 2012-13 AND THE ITAT E BENCH NEW DELHI ORDER DATED 8.3.2018 IN THE CASE OF SH. NAVEEN KUMAR TYAGI FO R AY 2012-13. 7. LD. CIT(DR) RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED TH E RECORDS, ESPECIALLY THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WE LL AS PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 32 AND THE DECISION OF THE ITAT E BENCH NEW DELHI ORDER DATED 8.3.2018 IN THE CASE OF SH. NAVE EN KUMAR TYAGI FOR AY 2012-13; ITAT, NEW DELHI AND SMC BENCH ORD ER DATED 18.10.2017 IN THE CASE OF SH. ASHWANI KUMAR TYAGI F OR AY 2012-13. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVER ED BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, SMC BENCH DATED 18.10.2017 IN THE CASE OF SH. 10 ASHWANI KUMAR TYAGI VS. ITO, NOIDA IN ITA NO. 2745/ DEL/2017 (AY 2012-13). FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE ARE REPR ODUCING THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 18.1 0.2017 AS UNDER:- 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLV ED IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER THE IMPUGNED AGRICULTURAL LA ND WAS ANCESTRAL COPARCENARY PROPERTY PASSED ON FROM SHRI GHISA TO THE JOINT FAMILIES OF FATEH SINGH (SON), RAMESHWER DAYAL (GRAND SON) AND NAVEEN KUMAR (GREAT GRAND SON) BY SURVIVORSHIP TO THE HUF OF SHRI NAVEEN KUMAR TYAGI, INCORRECTLY RELYING ON S. 18 OF THE UP ZAMIDARI ABO LITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT, 1950, IGNORING S.37, WHICH CLEARL Y PROVIDES FOR TREATING THE JT. HINDU FAMILY AS A SEPARATE UNI T. THE MAIN CRUX OF THE CASE LAY IN THE FACT OF NON -PAYME NT OF TAX BY THE HUF, WHICH HAS NOW BEEN PAID UNDER THE IDS, LEAVING NO GROUND LEFT FOR SUSTAINING THE ADDITION ON ANY A CCOUNT. NONE OF THE HUFS, HAVING ONLY AGRICULTURAL INCOME W AS FILING ANY RETURN OF INCOME UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT AND WAS NEVER ASSESSED TO TAX, BEING NOT LIABLE TO TAX. THU S THE QUESTION OF ANY ITO PASSING ANY ORDER U/S.171 OF TH E ACT DOES NOT ARISE, NOR IS APPLICABLE TO AGRICULTURAL FAMILI ES, HAVING NO INCOME UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. NON FILING OF RET URNS UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT BY THE HUF WAS BONAFIDE BELIEF T HAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS NOT LIABLE TO TAX UNDER THE INCOME 11 TAX ACT. WHAT HAS BEEN IGNORED/OMITTED IS THE FACT THAT INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION WAS TAXABLE AND T HE HUF SHOULD HAVE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2012- 13, SHOWING INCOME FROM INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATI ON. THE BELIEF IS BONAFIDE AND CANNOT IN ANY MANNER BE ATTRIBUTED TO ANY MALAFIDE, MERELY BECAUSE THE INDIVIDUALS HAV ING THEIR INDEPENDENT INCOME FROM SELF ACQUIRED PROPERTIES OR OTHER ACTIVITIES, HAD NOT INCLUDED THE INCOME OF THE HUF IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME, WHICH PER SE IS CONTRARY TO LAW. NO INDIVIDUAL/KARTA IS AUTHORIZED TO APPROPRIATE AND S HOW THE INCOME OF THE HUF IN HIS HANDS, DEBARRING THE OTHER CO- PARCENERS OF THEIR RIGHT CLAIM TO THE SHARE OF HUF PROPERTIES/ASSETS/INCOME. 7. THIS FACT IS CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE INDIVIDUAL ASSESSEE, PARA-2. THE SAME IS DISCUSSE D BY THE ID. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF SHRI NAVEEN KUMAR, BROTHE R OF THE ASSESSEE, WHOSE ORDER HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, VIDE PARA-3 AT PAGES 24, PARA-5 PAGE-25, PARA-8 PAGE-26 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND HIS CONCLUSION IN PAR A-9, 10 AND 11. THE CRUX OF HIS ARGUMENTS IS THAT AN HUF UN DER THE INCOME TAX ACT COULD BE CREATED ONLY BY A GIFT OF PROPERTY AND NOT BY INHERITANCE/SUCCESSION TO THE PROPERTY O F THE BIGGER HUF, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO HINDU LAW AS WELL AS THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE BACKGROUND BEING THE FACT THAT NONE OF 12 THE CLAIMED HUFS WERE EVER ASSESSED TO TAX, WHICH I S AGAIN ERRONEOUS. ACCORDING TO HIM, IF THE HUF HAD FILED I TS RETURN SHOWING THE INCOME FROM INTEREST ON ENHANCED COMPEN SATION, WOULD HAVE RENDERED A FOOL PROOF EVIDENCE OF EXISTE NCE OF HUF UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT AND COPARCENARY PROPER TY UNDER HINDU LAW. 8. NOW THE QUESTION WAS HOW THE HUF COULD NOW D ECLARE ITS INCOME AND FILE THE RETURN, AS THE ACT PROHIBIT S THE SAME. EFFORT WAS THUS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO TAX THE HUF U/S.144A, BUT WAS DECLINED BY THE ID. JCT. LUCKILY THE IDS CAME INTO OPERATION AND TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SAM E, THE TWO HUFS FILED A DECLARATION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA DECLARING THE INTEREST ON ENHANCE D COMPENSATION AND PAID THE TAX AS PER PAGES 11-23 OF THE PAPER BOOK. OBVIOUSLY THIS EVIDENCE BEING SUBSEQUE NT COULD NOT BE FILED EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR THE ID. CITA, ALTHOUGH THE FACT OF OFFER MADE BEFORE THE JCIT U/S.144A HAS DUL Y BEEN DISCUSSED BY BOTH. THUS THE FACTUAL REASON TO DISAL LOW THE CLAIM OF THE HUF IS THAT NO SUCH RETURN WAS FILED A ND NO SUCH TAX HAD BEEN PAID BY THE HUF. THE ISSUE GETS SETTLE D BY THE PAYMENT OF TAXES BY THE HUF THROUGH THE DECLARATION MADE BEFORE THE PR. CIT UNDER IDS, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPT ED, AS ALL TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID. THEREFORE, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTA NCES, 13 AND FACTS OF THE CASE, SINCE THE HUF HAS ALREADY P AID TAX DUE ALONGWITH INTEREST, ETC AND CORRECT SHARE HAD B EEN DECLARED AT RS. 27,79,279/- AS AGAINST LESSER AMOUN T OF RS. 22,50,413/- TAKEN BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW , THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITIO N SO MADE. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. 8.1 KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH DATED 1 8.10.2017 IN THE CASE OF SH. ASHWANI KUMAR TYAGI VS. ITO, NOIDA IN I TA NO. 2745/DEL/2017 (AY 2012-13) AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY TH E AFORESAID DECISION DATED 18.10.2017 IN THE CASE OF ASHWANI KUMAR TYAGI (SUPRA) WHICH HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2017 IN THE CASE OF SH. ASHWA NI KUMAR TYAGI (SUPRA), WE DELETE THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE AND ALLO W THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 18-12-2018. SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) (H .S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18-12-2018. SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI