The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar. V. Smt. Charan Kaur, New Delhi

ITA 362/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 36220914 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: POOJA TRIKHA
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.362(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 PAN : INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SMT. CHARAN KAUR, WARD 3(1), C-119, GANESH NAGAR, AMRITSAR. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH.TARSEM LAL, RESPONDENT BY:SMT. POOJA TRIKHA, CA DATE OF HEARING:18/03/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27/03/2015 ORDER PER A.D..JAIN,JM: THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/03/2014 PASSED BY THE CIT(A), AMRIT SAR. THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS ALLOWABLE, INVESTMENT HA VING BEEN MADE IN THE NAME OF ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF HUF. 2. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD JOINT PR OPERTY OF HER HUSBAND SH. MANJIT SINGH, RECEIVED BY HIM THROUGH INHERITAN CE, FOR RS.17.50 LACS AND ITA NO.362(ASR0/2014 2 A NEW PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF MISS. R UPA KALSI D/O SH. MANJIT SINGH. EXEMPTION WAS CLAIMED U/S 54 OF THE A CT. THE AO REJECTED THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED, OBSERVING THAT THE TRANSACTI ON WAS TO BE TREATED AS A GIFT AND SALE OF JOINT PROPERTY WAS TO BE TAXED AS CAPITAL GAIN. THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 3. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT THE CLA IM U/S 54 OF THE ACT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACIT Y AND THAT THE HUF, HAVING NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME, DID NOT CLAI M ANY DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVE PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). AS NOTED, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, NO REASON HAS B EEN GIVEN CONCERNING TAXABILITY OF THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE AS INDIVIDUAL, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY UNDISPUTEDLY BELONGED T O THE HUF OF THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE, HAVING BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF I NHERITANCE. RATHER, THIS FACT HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. THUS, IT WAS THE PROPERTY OF THE HUF OF THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSES SEE. THAT BEING SO, AS RIGHTLY BEEN HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A), IT CANNOT BE A SSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. ITA NO.362(ASR0/2014 3 4.1. THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THE FORESAID PR OPERTY OF THE HUF OF THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE WERE INVESTED IN THE PURCHA SE OF ANOTHER PROPERTY. THIS PROPERTY WAS IN THE NAME OF THE ONE OF THE BE NEFICIARIES OF THE HUF. A VIEW TO THIS EFFECT HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE MUMBAI BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 13(2)(3), MU MBAI VS. ARVIND T. THAKKAR IN ITA NO.7338/MUM/2005, DATED 29.04.2011, WHICH DECISION HAS RIGHTLY BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE LD. CI T(A). 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) IS FOUND TO BE WELL VERSED AND IS HEREBY CONFIRMED, REJECTING THE GRIEV ANCE SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE US. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON MARCH, 2015. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (A.D.JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: MARCH, 2015 /SKR/ PRONOUNCED ON 27/03/2015 SD/- JM COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SMT. CHARAN KAUR, NEW DELHI 2. THE ITO WARD 3(1), ASR, ASR.. 3. THE CIT(A), ASR. 4. THE CIT 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.