Shri Prashant Kumar Kailashchand Tayal HUF, Sendhwa V. The ITO, Khargone

ITA 45/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99021 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 143(3); 56(2); 6; 56

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, J.M. AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, A.M. I.T.A.NO. 45/IND/2014 A.Y. : 2006-07 SHRI PRAKSHANTKUMAR ITO, KAILASHCHAND TAYAL HUF, VS. KHARGONE SENDHWA APPELLANT RESPONDENT P.A.N. NO A AA IHP1890E APPELLANT BY SHRI SUMIT NEMA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SHRI R. A. VERMA, SR. DR . DATE OF HEARING : 02 .0 9 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 .09.2015 -: 2: - 2 O R D E R PER GARASIA, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, INDORE, DATED 31.10.2013 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS, IN LAW AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF GIFT OF RS. 10,01,100/- AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 92,960/- OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT THE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS ARBITRARY, UNCALLED FOR AND BAD IN LAW. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION KINDLY BE DELETED. -: 3: - 3 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PR OCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF KAILASH AGRAWAL, PROPRIETOR OF AGRAWAL AGENCIES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT H E HAD MADE GIFT OF RS. 10,01,100/- TO M/S. PRASHANT KUMAR KAILASH CHANDRA TAYAL, HUF. THE SAID GIFT AMOUNT IS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF DONEE M/S. PRASHANT KUMAR KAILASHCHANDRA H UF U/S 56(2)(V). ON THIS BASIS, THE AO HAS MADE INQUIR Y AND AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE, THE AO HELD THAT THE HUF M/S. PRASHANT KUMAR KAILASHCHANDRA HAS RECEIVED A GIFT OF RS. 10 ,01,000/- AS PER THE GIFT DEED EXECUTED ON 13.7.2005 BY CHEQU E NO. 2070075 DATED 13.7.2005 OF THE STATE BANK OF INDORE FROM SHRI KAILASHCHANDRA CHIRONJILAL AGRAWAL. THE AO HEL D THAT THE LAW RELATING TO GIFT TO RELATIVE IS VERY CLEAR AND HENCE GIFT RECEIVED BY HUF IS TAXABLE U/S 56(2)(V) OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT, 1961, AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN THE HANDS OF HUF AS HUF IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL, BUT A GROUP OF PERSONS KN OWN AS FAMILY. THE AO HAS TREATED THIS GIFT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. -: 4: - 4 4. THE MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. C IT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 5. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 . THE DEFINITION OF RELATIVE WAS IN RESPECT OF RELATION WITH INDIVIDUAL DONE WITH CLOSE RELATIVES AS DEFINED THEREIN. HOWEV ER, SECTION 56(2)(V) WAS IN RESPECT OF INDIVIDUAL HUF, MEANING THEREBY THAT THE STATUTE INCLUDES INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS HUF . THUS, IF THE GIFT IS RECEIVED BY HUF THEN IT DOES NOT COME U NDER THE RELATIVE. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT RAJKOT BENCH IN THE CASE OF VINEETKUMAR RAGHAV JIBHAI BHALODIA VS. ITO, (2011) 140 TTJ (RAJKOT) 58, WHERE IN AN INDIVIDUAL HAS RECEIVED A GIFT FROM HUF AND THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE INDIVIDUAL FROM THE HUF WAS TAXABLE AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE HUF DOES NOT INCLUDE AN INDIVIDUAL. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT TAXABLE . SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY AHMEABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HARSH ADBHAI DAHYALAL VAIDHYA (HUF) IN I.T.A.NO. 1527/AHD/2010, WHEREIN THE SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED. -: 5: - 5 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. SENIOR D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS NARRATED THE FACTS THAT THE GIFT WAS GIVEN BY FATHER OF KARTA HUF TO HUF OF HIS SON. THE GIFTS ARE TAXABLE U/S 56(2)(V) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, W ITH THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN THE SAID SECTION. THE EXPLANA TION SPEAKS OF RELATIVES GIFT GIVEN ON VARIOUS OCCASION S UNDER WILL OR WAY OF INHERITANCE. THE RELATIVE HAS BEEN DEFINE D IN EXPLANATION OF THE SAID SECTION, WHICH ARE SPOUSE O F INDIVIDUAL, BROTHER OR SISTER OF SELF, SPOUSE EITHE R OF THE PARENTS. THE HUF IS A SEPARATE IDENTITY AND IT IS N OT CONSIDERED AS RELATIVE. WE FIND THAT SECTION 56(2) OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, BUT IF WE GO THROUGH BY THE SECTION 56(2), WHICH PROVIDES THE EXPLANATION AND W HEN ANY GIFT IS MADE TO HUF, THEN IT IS NOT A RELATIVE. WE WILL REPRODUCE SECTION 56, WHICH READS AS UNDER :- -: 6: - 6 A SUB-SECTION HAS BEEN INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004, W.E.F. 1.4.2005 AND THE RELEVANT SECTION READS AS FOLLOWS :- SECTION 56 : (I) INCOME OF EVERY KIND WHICH IS NOT TO BE EXCLUDE D FROM THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THIS ACT SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, IF IT IS NOT CHARGEABLE TO INC OME- TAX UNDER ANY OF THE HEADS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 14, ITEMS A TO E. (2) IN PARTICULAR AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GENERALITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (1), THE FOLLOWING INCOME SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME- TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES', NAMELY :- . [(V) WHERE ANY SUM OF MONEY EXCEEDING TWENTY- FIVE THOUSAND RUPEES IS RECEIVED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU -: 7: - 7 UNDIVIDED FAMILY FROM ANY PERSON ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2004, [BUT BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2006,] THE WHOLE OF SUCH SUM: PROVIDED THAT THIS CLAUSE SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY SUM OF MONEY RECEIVED- (A) FROM ANY RELATIVE; OR (B) ON THE OCCASION OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE INDIVIDUAL; OR (C) UNDER A WILL OR BY WAY OF INHERITANCE; OR (D) IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH OF THE PAYER. [(E) FROM ANY LOCAL AUTHORITY AS DEFINED IN THE EXPLANATION TO CLAUSE (20) OF SECTION 10; OR (F) FROM ANY FUND OR FOUNDATION OR UNIVERSITY OR OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OR HOSPITAL OR OTHER MEDICAL INSTITUTION OR ANY TRUST OR INSTITUTION REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (23C) OF SECTION 10; OR (G) FROM ANY TRUST OR INSTITUTION REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 12AA.] -: 8: - 8 EXPLANATION: FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, 'RELATIVE' MEANS- (I) SPOUSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL; (II) BROTHER OR SISTER OF THE INDIVIDUAL; (III) BROTHER OR SISTER OF THE SPOUSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL; (IV) BROTHER OR SISTER OF EITHER OF THE PARENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL; (V) ANY LINEAL ASCENDANT OR DESCENDANT OF THE INDIVIDUAL; (VI) ANY LINEAL ASCENDANT OR DESCENDANT OF THE SPOUSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL; (VII) SPOUSE OF THE PERSONS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSES (II) TO (VI).]' 8. FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE DEFINITION OF RELA TIVE HAS BEEN DEFINED BY AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2 012, AND THE DEFINITION OF RELATIVE HAS BEEN MODIFIED AN D IN WHICH IT IS INCLUDED THAT IN CASE OF HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, ANY MEMBER THEREOF HAS BEEN INCLUDED W.E.F. 01.10.2009. FROM -: 9: - 9 THIS PROPOSITION, IT IS CLEAR THAT UP TO 01.10.2009 , THE DEFINITION OF RELATIVE WAS AS PER THE OLD SECTION A ND IN CASE OF GIFT BY HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY TO ANY MEMBER WAS NO T INCLUDED IN RELATIVE PRIOR TO THIS AMENDMENT AND AF TER THIS AMENDMENT, THESE MEMBERS OF HUF WERE INCLUDED IN TH E DEFINITION OF RELATIVES. THIS CASE PERTAINED TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE GETS THE IMMUNITY FOR CHARGING SECTION. WE GET SUPPORT FROM THE ORDER OF I.T.A.T., AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF HARSHADBHAI DAHYALAL VAIDHYA (HUF) VS. ITO, PASSED IN I.T.A.NO. 1527/AHD /2010. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE I.T.A.T. AHMEDABAD BENCH AR E AS UNDER :- 7.1 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, I.E. A Y 2005-06 THE DEFINITION OF 'RELATIVE' WAS IN RESPECT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BY AN INDIVIDUAL DONEE WITH CLOSE-RELATIVES AS DEFINED THEREIN. HOWEVER, IT IS VERY PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE OPERATIVE SECTION I.E. SECTION 56(2)(V) WAS IN RESPECT OF (I) INDIVIDUAL, AND (II) HINDU -: 10: - 10 UNDIVIDED FAMILY (HUF). MEANING THEREBY THE LEGISLATURE HAS CLEAR INTENTION TO INCLUDE BOTH THE STATUSES I.E. INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS HUF WITHIN ITS SCOPE; AS WELL AS; WITHIN ITS OPERATION. THUS, THE SECTION IS APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF MONEY EXCEEDING RS. 25,OOO/- RECEIVED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION EITHER BY AN 'INDIVIDUAL' OR BY A 'HUF'. NOW WE READ THE PROVISO ANNEXED TO SUB-SECTION (V) THAT THE CHARGING CLAUSE SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY SUM OF MONEY RECEIVED FROM ANY RELATIVE. MEANING THEREBY THE PROVISO IS APPLICABLE TO BOTH OF THEM I.E. 'INDIVIDUAL' AS WELL AS 'HUF'. THE DONOR-RELATIVE CAN BE EITHER RELATIVE OF 'INDIVIDUAL' OR 'HUF'; AS THE CASE MAY BE. IN OTHER WORDS, IF AN AMOUNT EXCEEDING RS. 25,000/- IS RECEIVED AS A GIFT EITHER BY -: 11: - 11 'INDIVIDUAL' OR BY 'HUF', THEN SUCH AN AMOUNT IS CHARGEABLE TO INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' BUT AN EXCEPTION IS PROVIDED IN THE FIRST PROVISO THAT THE SAID CLAUSE OF CHARGING THE AMOUNT TO TAX SHOULD NOT APPLY TO AN AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM ANY RELATIVE. WE HEREBY THUS INTERPRET THAT THE PROVISO PRESCRIBES THAT THE CHARGING OF THE GIFTED AMOUNT SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY SUM OF MONEY RECEIVED AS A GIFT FROM A 'RELATIVE' EITHER BY AN 'INDIVIDUAL' OR BY 'HUF'. NATURALLY, THE PROVISO ANNEXED TO CLAUSE(V) OF SECTION 56(2) DO NOT RESTRICT TO AN 'INDIVIDUAL' BUT IT GOVERNS 'INDIVIDUAL' AS WELL AS A 'HUF'. WITH THIS UNDERSTANDING INTERPRETATION OF THE MAIN PROVISIONS, WE HAVE TO EXAMINE THE DEFINITION OF 'RELATIVE' GIVEN IN EXPLANATION -: 12: - 12 ANNEXED TO THIS SECTION. THE POSITION SHALL BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT EVEN IN CASE OF HUF IF A SUM OF MONEY IS RECEIVED FROM ANY RELATIVE AND THAT RELATIVE IS AS DEFINED IN EXPLANATION, THEN ALSO FA LL WITHIN THE EXCEPTION AS PRESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION. 7.2. ON OUR STUDY, WE HAVE PONDERED UPON THE COMMENTARY OF SAMPATH IYENGAR 'LAW OF INCOME TAX' 10 TH EDITION - PAGE 4611 AND THE COMMENTS ARE REPRODUCED BELOW:- ' EXPLANATION TO CLAUSE (V) THE EXPLANATION TO CLAUSE (V), WHICH DEFINES A RELATIVE, IS WIDE ENOUGH TO INCLUDE SPOUSE, BROTHER OR SISTER, THEIR SPOUSES, BROTHER OR SISTER OF EITHER PARENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND LINEAL ASCENDANT OR DESCENDANT OF BOTH THE INDIVIDUAL AND HIS/HER SPOUSE AND THE SPOUSE OF ANY OF THE PERSONS MENTIONED HEREIN BEFORE. -: 13: - 13 HENCE, THE DEFINITION COVERS ONLY RELATIVES OF THE INDIVIDUALS, SO THAT THE EXPLANATION SEEMS 10 HAVE OVERLOOKED THE PROVISION IN THE MAIN SECTION SPARING LIABILITY FOR HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY (HUF) IN RESPECT OF GIFTS FROM RELATIVES. EVEN THE OTHER EXEMPTION AS FOR OCCASION ON THE MARRIAGE OF INDIVIDUALS OR INHERITANCE COULD HAVE NOT APPLICATION TO THE HUF. IN THE CASE OF HUF, SINCE THE JOINT FAMILY REFERS TO A GROUP OF PERSONS, IT EITHER MEANS THAT THE EXEMPTION IS AVAILABLE JAR GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE HUF FROM ANY PERSON RELATED TO THE KARTA OR ANY OTHER FAMILY MEMBER OR IT MAY MEAN THAT SINCE HUF CANNOT HAVE RELATIVES, ALL THE GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE HUF WILL BE TAXABLE. THIS INFERENCE DOES NOT OBVIOUSLY FALL IN LINE WITH THE INTENT, BECAUSE THE PROVISION DOES -: 14: - 14 CONTEMPLATE EXEMPTION OF THE GIFTS RECEIVED BY HUF, BUT HAS NOT INDICATED THE RELATIONSHIP THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSES OF HUF, BECAUSE THE DEFINITION OF 'RELATIVE' IN THE EXPLANATION REFERS TO THE RELATIVES OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND NOT HUF, WITH THE RESULT THAT THE EXEMPTION OF GIFT FROM RELATIVES IS ALIVE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF POSSIBLE EXEMPTION FOR GIFTS BY WILL OR IN CONTEMPLATION OF DEATH. ' 7.3. OUR ABOVE VIEW GETS SUPPORT FROM AN ORDER OF RESPECTED RAJKOT BENCH PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF VINEETKUMAR RAGHAVJIBHAI BHALODIA VS. ITO REPORTED AT (2011) 140 TTJ (RAJKOT) 58. IN THAT CIT ED DECISION, AN INDIVIDUAL HAS RECEIVED A GIFT FROM HU F. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE HUF BEING NOT COVERED WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF 'RELATIVE', THEREF ORE, THE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE INDIVIDUAL FROM THE HUF WA S TAXABLE. THE RESPECTED BENCH HAS COMMENTED THAT -: 15: - 15 AS PER THE DEFINITION OF 'PERSON' DEFINED IN SECTIO N 2(31) INCLUDES 'HUF'. THEREFORE A HUF IS DISTINCTLY ASSESSABLE TO TAX AS A PERSON UNDER THE IT ACT. THE BENCH HAS OBSERVED THAT, QUOTE 'THEREFORE, THE EXPRESSION 'HUF' MUST BE CONSTRUED IN THE SENSE IN WHICH IT IS UNDERSTOOD UNDER THE HINDU LAW AS HAS BEEN IN THE CASE OF SURJIT LAL CHHABDA VS. CUT 1976 CTR (SC) 140: (1975) 101 ITR 776 (SC). ACTUALLY AN 'HUF' CONSTITUTES ALL PERSONS LINEALLY DESCENDED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR AND INCLUDES THEIR MOTHERS, WIVES OR WIDOWS AND UNMARRIED DAUGHTERS. ALL THESE PERSONS FALL IN THE DEFINITION OF 'RELATIVE' AS PROVIDED IN EXPLANATION TO CL.(VI) OF S. 56(2) OF T HE ACT. THE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) THAT HUF IS AS GOOD AS 'A BOI' AND CANNOT BE TERMED AS 'RELATIVE' IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. RATHER, AN HUF IS 'A GROUP OF RELATIVES'. NOW HAVING FOUND THAT AN HUF IS 'A GROU P OF RELATIVES', THE QUESTION NOW ARISES AS TO WHETHE R WOULD ONLY THE GIFT GIVEN BY THE INDIVIDUAL RELATIV E FROM THE HUF BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION AND WOULD, IF -: 16: - 16 A GIFT COLLECTIVELY GIVEN BY THE 'GROUP OF RELATIVE S' FROM THE HUF NOT EXEMPT FROM TAXATION.' UNQUOTE. 7.4. THE RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS ALSO EXAMINED THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE AND THEREUPON MADE AN OBSERVATION THAT, QUOTE '11.2. FURTHER, FROM A PLAIN READING OF S. 56(2)(VI) ALONG WITH THE EXPLANATION TO THAT SECTION AND ON UNDERSTANDING THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE FROM THE SECTION, WE FIND THAT A GIFT RECEIVED FROM 'RELATIVE ', IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT IS FROM AN INDIVIDUAL RELATIVE OR FROM A GROUP OF RELATIVES IS EXEMPT FROM TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S.56(2)(VI) OF THE ACT AS A GROUP OF RELATIVES ALSO FALLS WITHI N THE EXPLANATION TO S.56(2)(VI) OF THE ACT. IT IS NO T EXPRESSLY DEFINED IN THE EXPLANATION THAT THE WORD 'RELATIVE' REPRESENTS A SINGLE PERSON. AND IT IS NO T ALWAYS NECESSARY THAT SINGULAR REMAINS SINGULAR. SOMETIMES A SINGULAR CAN MEAN MORE THAN ONE, AS IN THE CASE BEFORE US. IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE -: 17: - 17 ASSESSEE RECEIVED GIFT FROM HIS HUF. THE WORD 'HUF', THOUGH SOUNDS SINGULAR UNIT IN ITS FORM AND ASSESSED AS SUCH FOR INCOME-TAX PURPOSES, FINALLY AT THE END A 'HUF' IS MADE UP OF 'A GROUP OF RELATIVES'. UNQUOTE. 7.5. THE ABOVE OBSERVATION HAS BUTTRESSED OUR VIEW, HOWEVER, IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE OBSERVATION OF A COORDINATE BENCH, WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT AT SOME LATER STAGE, THE LEGISLATURE BECAME CONSCIOUS OF TH E PROBLEM, THEREFORE WHILE DRAFTING THE ANALOGOUS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VII), IT WAS ADDED IN T HE DEFINITION OF 'RELATIVE' (II) IN CASE OF A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY, ANY MEMBER THEREOF. THIS SECTION IS INSERTED BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT OF 2009 W.E.F. 1/10/2009 WHICH PRESCRIBES THAT WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL OR HUF RECEIVES IN ANY PREVIOUS YEAR ON OR AFTER 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER-2009 ANY SUM OF MONEY WITHOUT CONSIDERATION EXCEEDING RS. 50,000/- THE WHOLE OF THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF SUCH SUM SHALL BE -: 18: - 18 CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX. PROVIDED THAT THE CHARGIN G CLAUSE SHALL NOT TO APPLY TO ANY SUM OF MONEY RECEIVED FROM ANY RELATIVE. AS PER THIS NEWLY INSERTED CLAUSES, (A) 'RELATIVE' MEANS IN CASE OF H UF ANY 'MEMBER THEREOF'. ALTHOUGH THIS SUBSEQUENT CHANGE IN THE ACT DO NOT APPLY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BEING INCORPORATED BY FINANCE ACT, 2009 BUT IT APPEARS THAT BY INSERTION OF THESE WORD S HON'BLE LEGISLATURES HAVE VISUALIZED THE DIFFICULTY , HENCE STREAMLINED THE PROVISIONS BY REMOVING THE DOUBT. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE- HUF HAS UNDISPUTEDLY RECEIVED A GIFT OF RS. 7 LACS FROM A RELATIVE WHO IS AN UNCLE OF THE KARTA OF THI S HUF, I.E.; AS PER EXPLANATION TO SUB-CLAUSE (IV); 'BROTHER OR SISTER OF EITHER OF THE PARENTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL', HENCE FALL WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF THE 'RELATIVE' PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT, THEREFORE NOT CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THU S THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE HEREBY ALLOWED. -: 19: - 19 9. WE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF AHMEDABAD BENCH, ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. 11. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/- (B. C. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 22 ND SEPTEMBER, 2015. CPU*