The Income tax Officer, Ward-16(2), Hyderabad V. Dr.M.Shoba Raghuveera, Hyderabad

ITA 47/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74669 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K HARITA
• Keywords: Gift; Audit objection
• Section: 56(2); 56

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.47/HYD/13 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 16(2), HYDERABAD. V/S. DR. M.SHOBHA RAVHUVEERA, HYDERABAD ( PAN - AHXPM 8911 C ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. K.HARITA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.SRINIVAS DATE OF HEARING 3.3.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 3.3.2014 O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) - V, HYDERABAD DATED 29.10.2012 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. 2. EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL ARE AS FOLLOWS 1. THE OR D ER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS ON FACTS AND IN LAW . 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION, AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BASING ON FACTS AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO H AS COMPLETED RE - ASSESSMENT BRINGING TO TAX THE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS OWN HUF U/S. 56 OF I.T. ACT. 4. THE CASE FALLS UNDER EXCEPTIONARY CLAUSE AS PER CBDTS INSTRUCTION NO.3/2011 DCT.09.02.2011 SINCE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER DISPUTE WAS A RES ULT OF REMEDIAL ACTION TO AN AUDIT OBJECTION OF REVENUE AUDIT. THEREFORE, EVEN AS PER CBDTS INSTRUCTION NO.3/2011, THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR FURTHER APPEAL. 5. . ITA NO. 47 / HYD/20 13 DR. M.SHOBHA RAVHUVEERA, HYDERABAD 2 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR OF M/S. MEDA HOSPITALS P VT. LTD. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, THE ASSESSEE FIL E D HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 16.10.2006 ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF R S .4,11,056. THOUGH TH E ASSESSMENT WAS COMPL E T E D INITIALLY UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30.12.2008, SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER NOTICED THAT AN AMOUNT O F RS .30,65,000 WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A GIFT F R OM M/S. RAGHUVEERA HUF, WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX. ACCOR D INGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE - OPENED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT, SO AS TO BRING TO TAX THE SAID A MOUNT OF R S .30,65,000. DURING THE COURSE OF RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEE D INGS, THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON THE DECISION O RAJKOT BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VINEET KUMAR RAJHARIBHAI B HALODIA V/S. I TO (46 SOT 97) , SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE RELATIVE DEFINITION COVERED UNDER S.56(2) ( V) OF THE ACT IS VERY WIDE AND A SMALL SET OF RELATIVES OF THIS BIGGER SET OF RELATIVES COVERED ARE THE M E MB E RS OF HUF. THIS SMALL GROUP OF ELIGIBLE RELATIVES, WHO ARE THE MEMBERS OF AN HUF CAN EXTEND GIFT TO ELIGIBLE RELATIVES. AS SUCH, AN HUF GIVING GIFT TO AN IN D I V I D UAL, WHO IS A MEMBER OF SUCH HUF, IS LOGICALLY NO T HIN G BUT EXTENDING GIFT TO THE RELATIVES COVERED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE RELATIVES UNDER S.56(2)(V) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE SUBMI S SION S O F THE ASSESSEE AND CONCLUDED THAT THE HUF CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS RELATIVE WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF S.56(2)(V) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE MADRAS H IGH COURT IN T HE CA S E OF CIT V / S. G.K. DEVARAJULU( 48 ITR 756 ) , OBSERVED TH A T THE EXPRESSION RELATIVE CAN HAVE REFERENCE ONLY TO A LIVING PERSON LIKE AN INDIVIDUAL AND NO T TO AN ENTITY OR PERSON LIKE A HUF. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE JURI S DICT I ONAL H I GH COU R T IN TH E CA S E OF DARAPANENI CHENNA KRISHNAYYA V/S. CIT (291 ITR 98), WHEREIN IN TH E CONTEXT OF S.54B, IT WAS HELD THAT HUF CANNO T BE CON S I D ERED A S RELATIVE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, BROUGHT TO TAX THE GIFT RE C EIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE HUF UNDER S.56 OF THE INCOM E - TAX ACT, 1961. ITA NO. 47 / HYD/20 13 DR. M.SHOBHA RAVHUVEERA, HYDERABAD 3 4. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT HUF IS NOTHING BUT A GROUP OF RELATIVES WORKING TOGETH E R, ONE FOR ALL AND ALL FOR ONE, AND THEREFORE, THE HUF GIVING A GIFT TO ITS MEMBERS IS A RELATIVE OR A GROUP OF RELATIVES GIVING GIFTS TO ANOTHER ELIGIBLE RELATIVES. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE D E FINITION OF RELATIVE, AS PER S.56(2)(V) OF THE ACT IS VERY WIDE AND A SMALL SET OF RELATIVES FORM THE MEMBERS OF THE HUF AND A SMALL GROUP OF ELIGIBLE RELATIVES AND WHO ARE MEMBERS OF AN HU F CAN EXTEND THE GIFTS TO ANOTHER ELIGIBLE RELATIVE. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE RAJKOT BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CA S E OF VINEET KUMAR R AJHARIBHAI BHALODIA (46 SOT 97). THE CIT(A) FOUND MERIT IN TH E CONTENTIONS O F THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT THOUGH HUF IS NO T CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE DEFINITION OF RELATIVE, CLAUSE ( VI) SATES ANY LINEAL ASCENDANT OR DESCENDENT OF THE SPOUSE OF THE IN D I VI DUAL AS COMING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE TERM RELATIVE . AS OPINED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CA S E RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE HIM, THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT HUF CONSTITU T ES ALL PE R SON S LINEALLY DESCENDED F R OM A COMMON A NCESTOR AND IN C LU D ES THEIR MOTHER, WIDOWS AND U N MARRIED DAUGHTERS. ALL TH E SE PERSONS FALL IN THE DEFINITION OF RELATIVE PROVIDED IN THE EXPLANATION TO CLAUSE (VI) OF S.56 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT IN THE CASE OF DARAPANENI CHENNA KRISHNAIAH (SU PRA) REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CA S E WAS IN THE CON T E X T OF S.54B OF THE AC T AND NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF S.56(2) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOLDI N G THAT THE GIFT RECEIVED FROM THE HUF IS NOTHING BUT A GIFT RECEIVED FROM GROUP OF RELATIVES. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORD E R OF THE CIT(A) , REVENUE IS IN APP E AL B E FORE US. 6. W E H E ARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE M A TE R IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. THE ONLY QUESTION ARISING FOR CON S IDERATION IN THIS APPEAL IS WH E THER A GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE HUF IS ELIGIBLE FOR BEIN G CONSIDERED AS A GIFT RECEIVED FROM A RELATIVE SO AS TO ITA NO. 47 / HYD/20 13 DR. M.SHOBHA RAVHUVEERA, HYDERABAD 4 QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION FROM TAX. WE SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) THAT HUF IS NOTHING BUT A GROUP OF RELATIVES. MERELY BECAUSE IT IS GIVEN LEGAL STATUS AS A HUF THE INDIVIDUALS DO NOT LOSE THEIR IDENTITY AS RELATIVES. SUCH GROUP OF RELATIVES WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE HUF CLEARLY FALL IN THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM RELATIVE PROVIDED IN EXPLANATION TO CLAUSE (VI) OF S.56 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT. IT IS A MATTER OF JURISPRUDENCE THAT A SINGULAR CAN BE READ AS PLURAL HAVING REGARD TO THE SITUATION AND CIRCUMSTANCE, AND IN THA T VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE WORD RELATIVE INCLUDES RELATIVES AND SUCH RELATIVES COMING TOGETHER AS A GROUP AND CON ST ITUTING THEMSELVES AS A LEGAL ENTITY, VIZ. HUF, ARE NOT DISENTITLED FROM THEIR ORIGINAL RIGHT OF GIVING GIFTS TO ANY ELIGIBLE RELATIVE E ITHER WITHIN OR OUTSIDE THE RING OF HUF. APART FROM THE DECISION OF THE RAJKOT BENCH RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CA SE OF HARSHABHAI DAHYALAL VAIDHYA(HUF) V/S. ITO ( 155 TTJ (AHD) 71 ), WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE , ANALYZING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VI) IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER, AND HELD THAT A GIFT TO AN ELIGIBLE RELATIVE, BY AN HUF IS EXEMPT, 7.1 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, I.E. AY 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 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.25,000/ - RECEIVED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION EITHER BY AN 'INDIVIDUAL' OR BY A 'HUF'. N OW 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 'INDIVIDUAL' OR BY 'HUF', THEN SUCH AN AMOUNT IS CHARGEABLE TO INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURC ES' BUT AN EXCEPTION IS PROVIDED IN THE FIRST PROVISO THAT THE SAID CLAUSE OF CHARGING THE AMOUNT TOTAX 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 SH ALL 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 ITA NO. 47 / HYD/20 13 DR. M.SHOBHA RAVHUVEERA, HYDERABAD 5 UNDERSTANDING/INTERPRETATION OF THE MAIN PROVISIONS, WE HAVE TO EXAMINE THE DEFINITION OF 'RELATIVE' GIVEN IN EXPLANATION ANNEXED TO THIS SECTI ON. 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 FALL WITHIN THE EXCEPTION AS PRESCRIBED IN THIS SECTION. 7.2. ON OUR STUDY, WE H AVE PONDERED UPON THE COMMENTARY OF SAMPATH IYENGAR 'LAW OF INCOME TAX' 10TH 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, B ROTHER 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. HENCE, THE DEFINITION COVERS O NLY RELATIVES OF THE INDIVIDUALS, SO THAT THE EXPLANATION SEEMS TO 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 MARR IAGE 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 FOR 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 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 G IFT 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 CITED DECISION, AN INDIVIDUAL HAS RECEIVED A GIFT FROM HUF. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE HUF BEING NOT COVERED WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF 'RELATIVE', THEREFORE THE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE INDIVIDUAL FROM THE HUF WAS TAXABLE. THE RESPECTED BENCH HAS COMMENTED THAT AS PER THE DEFINITION OF 'PERSON' DEFINED IN SECTION 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 'THEREFO RE, 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. CIT 1976 CTR (SC) 140 : (1975) 101 ITR 776 (SC). ACTUALLY AN 'HUF' CONSTITUTES ALL PERSONS LINEALLY DESC ENDED 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 THE 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 GROUP OF RELATIVES, THE QUESTION NOW ARISES AS TO WHETHER WOULD ONLY THE GIFT GIVEN BY THE INDIVIDUAL RE LATIVE FROM THE HUF BE EXEMPT FROM TAXATION AND WOULD, IF A GIFT COLLECTIVELY GIVEN BY THE ITA NO. 47 / HYD/20 13 DR. M.SHOBHA RAVHUVEERA, HYDERABAD 6 GROUP OF RELATIVES FROM THE HUF NOT EXEMPT FROM TAXATION.' UNQUOTE. 7.4. THE RESPECTED CO - ORDINATE BENCH HAS ALSO EXAMINED THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE AND T HEREUPON 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', I RRESPECTIVE 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 WITHIN THE EXPLANATION TO S.56(2)(VI) OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT EXPRESSL Y DEFINED IN THE EXPLANATION THAT THE WORD 'RELATIVE' REPRESENTS A SINGLE PERSON. AND IT IS NOT 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 ASSESSEE RECEI VED 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. 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 THE PROBLEM, THEREFORE WHILE DRAFTING THE ANALOGOUS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VII), IT WAS ADDED IN THE DEFINITIO N 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 OCTO BER - 2009 ANY SUM OF MONEY WITHOUT CONSIDERATION EXCEEDING RS.50,000/ - THE WHOLE OF THE AGGREGATE VALUE OF SUCH SUM SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME - TAX. PROVIDED THAT THE CHARGING 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 HUF 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 WORDS HONBLE 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 KART A OF THIS 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. THUS THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE HEREBY ALLOWED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE IN THIS A PPEAL ARE REJECTED. ITA NO. 47 / HYD/20 13 DR. M.SHOBHA RAVHUVEERA, HYDERABAD 7 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 3 . 3 .2014 SD/ - SD/ - ( B.RAMAKOTAIAH ) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT/ - 3 RD MARCH, 2014 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. DR. M.SHOBHA RAVHUVEERA, H. NO.37 - 77/1/66, PLOT NO.610, DEFENCE COLONY, NEREDMET X ROAD, SECUNDERABAD. 2 . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 16 ( 3 ), HYDERABAD 3. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) V , HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX I V HYDERABAD 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S