AMARCHAND HUF, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 490/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9663 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Business income; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS [KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SH. KUL BHARAT, JM & SH. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 490/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 M/S AMARCHAND HUF THROUGH KARTA OF SUKHDEV S/O LATE SH. AMAR CHAND VILLAGE & POST THIKARIYA, TEHSIL- SANGANER, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. - VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : NONE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SH. R.A. VERMA (ADDL.CIT ) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 27.03.2017 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31/03/2017. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SH. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)- III, JAIPUR DATED 21.03.2016 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LEARNED CIT(A) -III, JAIPUR HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN TREATING SH. AMARCHAND HUF AS SOLE OWNER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SO SOLD, WHEREAS THE NAME OF S H. AMARCHAND WAS REMOVED FROM JAMABANDHI ON HIS DEATH. THE LAND WAS INHERITED BY THE WIFE OF SH. AMARCHAND & HIS FOUR S ONS. THUS ITA NO. 490/JP/2016 M/S AMARCHAND HUF VS. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 2 QUESTION OF LAND BELONGING TO SH. AMARCHAND DOES NO T ARISE. THUS ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN THE NAME OF SH. AMARCH AND HUF & CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE QU ASHED. 2. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 7(2), JA IPUR HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS IN COMPLETING ASSE SSMENT U/S 147/143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IN THE STATUS OF H UF OF M/S AMARCHAND AND ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)- III, JAIPUR, WHEREAS THE SALE PROCEED OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BELON GED TO RESPECTIVE HUF OF SH. BABULAL, SUKHDEV, GANPAT LAL, NETRAPAL & SMT. CHUNNI DEVI AND AS SUCH ASSESSMENT SO COMPLETE D DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 7(2), JAIPUR HAS GROSSLY ERR ED IN COMPLETING ASSESSMENT U/S 147/143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT , 1961 IN THE STATUS OF HUF OF LATE SH. AMARCHAND & CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)- III, JAIPUR, WHEREAS AFTER DEATH OF SH. AMA RCHAND, THE NAME OF SH. BABULAL, SUKHDEV, GANPAT LAL, NETRAPAL & SMT. CHUNNI DEVI HAVE BEEN ENTERED IN THE JAMABANDHI ON 14.05.1996 & NAME OF LATE SH. AMARCHAND WAS REMOVED. THEREFOR E THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SO SOLD BELONGED TO RESPECTIVE HU F OF SH. BABULAL, SUKHDEV, GANPAT LAL, NETRAPAL & SMT. CHUNN I DEVI IN HER ITA NO. 490/JP/2016 M/S AMARCHAND HUF VS. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 3 INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. THUS ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN THE NAME OF M/S AMARCHAND (HUF) DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 7(2), JAIPUR HAS GRO SSLY ERRED IN TREATING THE TWO SALE PROCEED OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT RS. 19875000/- (15778000 + 4097000) BELONGED TO M/S AMA RCHAND HUF & CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-III, JAIPUR, WHEREAS THE SALE PROCEEDS HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY THE RESPECTIVE H UF OF SH. BABU LAL, SUKHDEV, GANPAT LAL, NETRAPAL & SMT. CHUN NI DEVI IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE SU B-REGISTRAR, SANGANER, DISTT. JAIPUR AS PER DETAILS GIVEN BELOW. HAD THERE BEEN ANY DOUBT ABOUT SHARE RECEIVED BY THE RESPECTI VE HUF, THE SUB-REGISTRAR WOULD NOT HAVE REGISTERED THE DOCUMEN TS. SR.NO. NAME OF THE SELLER SALE DEED DATED SALE S DEED DATED TOTAL SALES PROCEED 28.01.2006 28.01.2006 1. SH. BABU LAL 3155600.00 819400.00 397 5000.00 2. SH. SUKHDEV 3155600.00 819400.00 3975000 .00 3. SH. GANPAT LAL 3155600.00 819400.00 39 75000.00 4. SH. NETRAPAL 3155600.00 819400.00 3975000.00 5. SMT. CHUNNI DEVI 3155600.00 819400.00 3975000.00 15778000.00 4097000.00 19875000.00 THUS ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN THE NAME OF M/S AMARCH AND HUF DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. ITA NO. 490/JP/2016 M/S AMARCHAND HUF VS. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 4 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 7(2) JAIPUR HAS TOTA LLY OVER RULED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-III, JAIPUR A S WELL AS HONBLE MEMBERS OF ITAT BENCH, JAIPUR AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), JAIPUR, WHEREAS THE THAN HONBLE CI T(A)-III, JAIPUR HAD HELD THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND, UNDISPUTEDL Y BELONGED TO THE HUF AND NOT TO THE APPELLANT IN HIS CAPACITY AS AN INDIVIDUAL. THEREFORE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN THE NAME OF M/S A MARCHAND HUF DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 7(2), JAIPUR HAS WRO NGLY DETERMINED THAT NO DIVISION OF KHASARA NO. WAS MADE IN REVENUE RECORDS, WHEREAS THE NAME OF THE FIVE PERSONS VIZ S H. BABU LA., SUKHDEV, GANPAT LAL, NETRAPAL & SMT. CHUNNI DEVI HA VE BEEN MENTIONED AND ACCORDING TO THESE FACTS, WHILE EXECU TING SALE DEED OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE SELLERS HAD BEEN REC EIVED THEIR EQUAL SHARES OF MONEY BY WAY OF BANKERS CHEQUE. TH EREFORE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 7(2), JAIPUR HAS WRO NGLY COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 147/143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 IN THE NAME OF M/S AMARCHAND HUF AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEAR NED CIT(A), JAIPUR, WHEREAS SH. AMARCHAND WAS EXPIRED L ONG BACK I.E. ON 15.05.1995 AND LAND IN QUESTION WAS INHERIT ED BY SMT. ITA NO. 490/JP/2016 M/S AMARCHAND HUF VS. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 5 CHUNNI DEVI WIFE OF LATE SH. AMARCHAND & HIS FOUR S ONS & THEIR NAMES WERE ENTERED IN JAMABANDHI ON 14.05.1996. TH EREFORE THE ASSESSMENT SO COMPLETED IS CONTRARY TO THE FACT S ON RECORD, HENCE DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT LAND AT KHA SRA NO. 13 TO 18, 25 AND 26 OF VILLAGE THIKARIYA, AND LAND AT KHASRA NO.380 , 391, 406 OF VILLAGE PRITHVISINGHPURA ALIAS NAIWALA WAS JOINTLY SOLD BY SH. SUKHDEV S/O LATE AMARCHAND, SMT. CHUNNI DEVI W/O OF LATE SH. BABU LA L, GANPAT LAL AND NETRAPAL, ALL SONS OF LATE AMARCHAND, DURING THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN CASES OF SMT. CHUNNI DEVI, SUKHDEV AND BABU LAL WERE COMPLETED IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THESE INDIVIDUAL CASES WERE TAKEN UP IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND THEREAFTER, BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH DURING THE APPELLATE PR OCEEDINGS. IT WAS ARGUED IN THOSE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE AGRICULTURA L LAND SOLD WAS ANCESTRAL LAND AND INHERITED BY THE INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS FRO M LATE AMARCHAND WHO HAD INHERITED THE SAME FROM HIS FATHER SH. NAND RAM AND THE AGRICULTURAL LAND THUS BELONGS TO THE HUF AND NOT TO THE INDIVIDUAL A PPELLANTS. THE SAID CONTENTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL APPELLANTS WERE ACCEP TED AND THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF SH. SHU KH DEV, SON OF LATE AMARCHAND IN ITA NO. 747/JP/2010 DATED 25.03.2011 I S AS UNDER: 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND LD. CIT(A) AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY I N THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A). ITA NO. 490/JP/2016 M/S AMARCHAND HUF VS. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 6 FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN PARA 2 .4 AT PAGES 4 & 5 OF HIS ORDER ARE AS UNDER:- 2.4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF LD. A/R. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE VARIOUS DETAILS/ DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE LD. A/R IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS AND THE REMAND RE PORT THEREON RECEIVED FROM THE LD. AO. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, IT IS SEE N THAT THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS OF RS. 39,75,000/- ON 8.2.2006 IN THE APPE LLANTS BANK ACCOUNT WAS THE 1/5 TH SHARE OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD BY THE APPELLANT, ALONG WITH HIS MOTHER AND THREE BROTHERS (AS DETAILED IN PARA 2.2.1 ABOVE) AND THE SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND, UNDISPUTEDLY , BELONGED TO THE HUF AND NOT TO THE APPELLANT IN HIS CAPACITY AS AN INDIVIDU AL. FURTHER, I FIND THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 8,19,400/- IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE LD . AO HAS MADE A SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS. 8,14,200/-AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN , WAS INCLUDED IN THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS. 39,75,000/- WHICH WAS DEPOS ITED ON 8.2.2006, IN THE APPELLANTS BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, ON THESE FACT S, BOTH THE ADDITIONS I.E. OF RS. 39,75,000/- AND OF RS. 8,14,200/- ARE NOT SUSTA INABLE IN THE APPELLANTS CASE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE T HOSE ADDITIONS. HOWEVER, AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THE FACT THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD, IN QUESTION, BELONGED TO TH E HUF (OF THE APPELLANT AND HIS MOTHER AND THREE BROTHERS) AND, THEREFORE, THE AO MAY LIKE TO EXAMINE THE POSSIBILITY OF TAXING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI NS ARISING, ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AFORESAID AGRICULTURAL LAND, IN THE HANDS OF THE CONCERNED HUF. ITA NO. 490/JP/2016 M/S AMARCHAND HUF VS. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 7 THESE FINDINGS ARE FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH DO NOT RE QUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS LIABLE TO BE CONFIRMED. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARIFICATION, THE GROUND OF THE DEPARTMENT IN ACCE PTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTE D THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO AND THE AO HAS FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IS REASONABLE. THEREFOR E, WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THIS GROUND IS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. WITH THIS OBSERVATION, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. 3. SIMILAR FINDINGS HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE COORDINAT E BENCH IN CASE OF SH. BABU LAL S/O LATE AMARCHAND IN ITA NO. 770/JP/2010 DATED 13.04.2011. 4. HERE, IT IS NOTED THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS CONFIRMED THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN QUESTI ON WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD BELONGS TO THE HUF CONSISTING OF SH. SUKH DEV AND H IS MOTHER AND 3 BROTHERS AND IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH T HAT AO MAKE LIKE TO EXAMINE THE POSSIBILITY OF TAXING THE LONG TERM AS CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF THE AFORESAID AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE HANDS OF THE CONCERNED HUF CONSISTING OF SH. SUKH DEV AND HIS MO THER AND 3 BROTHERS. 5. PURSUANT TO THE ABOVE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. C IT(A) AND THE COORDINATE BENCH, THE ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF THE HUF (KNOWN AS M/S AMARCHAND HUF) WAS TAKE UP BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/ S 148 AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) O F THE ACT. ITA NO. 490/JP/2016 M/S AMARCHAND HUF VS. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 8 6. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO A COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE OF LATE SH. AMARCHAND AND SUBMITTED THAT SH. AMARCHAND WHO HAS EXPIRED ON 15.5.1995 HAS NO OCCASION TO SELL THE AGRICULTURAL LAND DURING THE S UBJECT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND SUBJECT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGA INST LATE SH AMARCHAND DESERVES TO BE DROPPED. IN OUR VIEW, IT IS HERE TH AT THE CONFUSION HAS ARISEN IN THE MIND OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS HAS BEEN INITIATED IN THE HANDS OF HUF KNOWN AS AMARCHAND HUF AND HAS NOT BEEN INITIATED IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OF LATE SH AMARCHAND. HERE , WE REFER TO THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS RIGHTL Y APPRECIATED THE CONCERN RATHER CONFUSION OF THE APPELLANT AS NOTED ABOVE AN D HIS FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER: THE REPLY OF THE A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONS IDERED CAREFULLY. THE CONTENTION THAT THE LAND WAS NOT SOLD BY SH. AMARCH AND IN THE YEAR 2005-06 HAS NO DEBATE AS SH. AMARCHAND HAD PASSED AWAY IN T HE YEAR 1995. THE A/R HIMSELF ACCEPTED THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD BY SH. BABU LAL VERMA ALONG WITH HIS THREE BROTHERS AND HIS MOTHER SMT. CHUNNI DEVI AND THIS LAND WAS THEIR ANCESTRAL HUF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 3. AS THE LAND SOLD WAS CLAIMED TO ANCESTRAL ONE AND B ELONG TO THE HUF AND WAS IN POSSESSION OF THEIR FATHER SH. AMARCHAND AND WHO ALSO INHERITED THIS PROPERTY FROM HIS FATHER SH. NANDU RAM, HENCE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS THE INHERITED PROPERTY OF M/S AMARCHAN D HUF. AFTER THE DEATH ITA NO. 490/JP/2016 M/S AMARCHAND HUF VS. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 9 OF SH. AMARCHAND AS NO PHYSICAL DIVISION OF THE LAN D IN QUESTION WAS MADE AMONGST THE COPARCENERS I.E. SH. SUKHDEV (S/O LATE SH. AMARCHAND) & SH. CHUNI DEVI (W/O LATE SH. AMARCHAND), SH. BABU LAL, SH. GANPAT LAL AND SH. NETRAPAL (ALL SONS OF LATE SH. AMARCHAND) ALTHOUGH THE NAMANTARAN OF THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS MADE IN THE REVENUE RECORD BUT SPECIFIC DIVISION OF KHASRA (S) IN RESPECT OF THIS LAND WAS NOT MADE AND ALL THE KHASRAS WERE COMBINDLY OWNED BY ALL THE SELLERS. AS NO PHYSICAL DIVISION OF THE LAND WAS MADE, THE SAME REMAINS THE PROPERTY THE COMBINED HU F OF ALL THE SELLERS I.E. FOUR BROTHERS AND THEIR MOTHER I.E. M/S AMARCHAND H UF. FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE IN RESPECT TO ANY DIVISION OF M/S AMARCHAND HUF WAS SUBMITTED, HENCE IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTS IT IS HELD THAT THE LAND BEARI NG KHASRA NUMBER(S) 13 TO 18, 25 TO 26, 380, 391, 406 OF VILLAGE THIKARIYA AND PR ITHVISINGHPURA ALIAS NAIWALA WAS ACTUALLY THE PROPERTY OF M/S AMARCHAND HUF WHIC H WERE SOLD BY ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE HUF COMBINED AFTER THE DEATH OF SH. AMARCHAND. 7. THE AO HAS THEREFORE HELD THAT AFTER THE DEATH O F SH. AMARCHAND, THE PROPERTY CONTINUES TO A PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE H UF AND SINCE THERE IS NO PARTITION OF HUF AND AS THE SAME HAS BEEN SOLD JOIN TLY BY ALL THE SURVIVING MEMBERS OF THE HUF, THE SAME WAS SUBJECT TO HANDS I N THE HANDS OF THE HUF. THE HUF WHICH IS BROUGHT TO TAX IS REPRESENTED BY K ARTA SH. SUKHDEV AND CONSISTING OF OTHER MEMBERS NAMELY SMT CHUNI DEVI, SH. BABULAL , JEEVANAL AND NETRAPAL. THOUGH THE HUF IS STILL CALLED AND R EPRESENTED AS AMARCHAND HUF BUT AFTER HIS DEATH, HE WAS NO MORE (AND COULD NOT BE) THE KARTA/ ITA NO. 490/JP/2016 M/S AMARCHAND HUF VS. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 10 COPARCENER/MEMBER OF THE HUF. WE DO NOT SEE ANY IN FIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. 7. HAVING SAID THAT, LETS EXAMINE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) WHICH ARE UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE US WHICH ARE CONTAINED AT PA RA 4.3 OF HER ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CA SE, FINDINGS OF THE AO AND SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE RELATING TO ISSUE RELATING TO COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT IN NAME OF AMARCHAND HUF LIABLE TO BE TAXED FOR CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF ANCESTRAL L AND HAVING CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 19744130/-. IN THIS CASE ORIGINALLY THE ORDER WAS PASSED IN THE NAME OF INDIVIDUALS- 1. SH. JEEVANLAL 2. BABULAL 3.SUKHDEV 4.CHUNNIDEVI 5.NETRAPAL IN THE CASE OF SUKHDEV ETC., CIT(A) HELD THAT SUBJE CT LAND BELONGED TO HUF. SINCE IT IS INHERITED FROM FOREFATHERS. THESE ORDE RS WERE CONFIRMED BY ITAT WITH DIRECTION THAT AO CAN TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION IN HANDS OF HUF AS PER LAW. ITA NO. 490/JP/2016 M/S AMARCHAND HUF VS. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 11 ACCORDINGLY THE AO REOPENED CASE OF AMARCHAND HUF B Y ISSUING NOTICE. AMARCHAND HUF WAS THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND ALL THE INDIVIDUALS STATED ABOVE BEING COPARCENERS AND HUF MEMBERS. ON THE DE ATH OF AMARCHAND, THE ELDEST SON SUKHDEV BECAME KARTA. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT LAND WAS NOT PARTITION ED. NO MUTATION WAS MADE. ALL ARE JOINTLY HOLDING THE LAND INHERITED THROUGH FARTHERS HUF. THEREFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT IN HANDS OF AMARCHAND HUF IS HEREBY HELD AS PROPER IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDER OF HONBLE ITAT, JA IPUR. ACTION OF THE AO IS THEREFORE UPHELD. 8. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER , WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 02.12.2016SIGNED BY MR. NARENDRA KR. GOSWAMI, ADVOCATEWAS SUBMITTED AT THE REGISTRY AND WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY US. IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS REITERATED IT CONTENTION WHICH HAVE BEEN RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES . THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE NAME OF SH. BABU LAL, SUKH DEV, GANPAT CHA ND, NETRAPAL AND SMT. CHUNNI DEVI WERE ENTERED IN JAMABANDHI ON 14.05.199 5 AND NAME OF LATE SH. AMARCHAND WAS REMOVED FROM THE JAMABANDHI AND THERE FORE, THE QUESTION OF LAND BELONGING SH. AMARCHAND DOES NOT ARISE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE SALE DEEDS, IT IS REVEALED THAT NAME OF LATE SH. AMARCHAND HUF HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED IN THE SALE DE ED AS THE SELLER WHEREAS NAME OF SH. BABU LAL ALONG WITH THEIR 3 BR OTHERS AND NAME OF SH. CHUNI DEVI HAVE BEEN MENTIONED AS THE SELLER OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE ITA NO. 490/JP/2016 M/S AMARCHAND HUF VS. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 12 SALE PROCEEDS HAVE ALSO BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQU ES BY SH. BABU LAL AND HIS BROTHER AS WELL AS HIS MOTHER SH. CHUNI DEVI. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SO SOLD BELONGED TO THE RESPECTIVE HUF CONSISTING OF SH. BABU LAL, SH. SUKH DEV, SH. GANPAT CHAND, SH. N ETRAPAL, SH. CHUNI DEVI AND THE ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF LATE SH. AMARCHAN D HUF HAS BEEN FRAMED INCORRECTLY AND WRONGLY CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). IT WA S FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE STATUS OF SH. BABU LAL AND SUKH DEVAS THAT OF H UF HAS ALREADY BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH VIDE ORDER DATE D 25.3.2011 IN ITA NO. 770/JP/2010. 9. LD. DR IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF L OWER AUTHORITIES. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE LD. AR AND OTHER MATERIAL A VAILABLE ON RECORD. AS WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DIS PUTED THE FACT THAT SH. AMARCHAND HAD EXPIRED ON 15.05.1995 AND THERE WAS N O OCCASION TO SELL THE LAND BY HIM IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD BY SH. BABU LAL ALONG WITH HIS 3 BROTHERS AND HIS MOTHER SMT. CHUNNI DEVI. THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITS ORDER DAT ED 25.03.2011 HAS GIVEN A FINDING OF FACT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE EITHER SIDE AND IN FACT THE SAID DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS BEEN RELI ED UPON BY BOTH THE PARTIES. AS NOTED ABOVE, THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS CONFIRMED THE FINDING OF FACT AS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE AGRICULTUR AL LAND SOLD IN QUESTION BELONGED TO THE HUF CONSISTING OF SH. SUKHDEV AND H IS MOTHER AND 3 ITA NO. 490/JP/2016 M/S AMARCHAND HUF VS. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 13 BROTHERS. THEREFORE, WHAT HAS BEEN SOLD WAS ANCEST RAL AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH BELONGS TO THE HUF AND IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX I N THE HANDS OF HUF AFTER THE DEATH OF SH. AMARCHAND. THERE IS NO PARTITION OF HUF AND THERE IS NO FINDING OF ANY PARTITION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER U/S 171 OF THE ACT. AFTER THE DEATH OF SH. AMARCHAND, HUF CONTINUES TO EXISTS AND REPRESENTED BY HIS ELDER SON SUKH DEV WHO BECAME THE KARTA OF H UF AND THE OTHER COPARCENERS ARE SMT. CHUNNI DEVI WIFE OF LATE SH. A MARCHAND, AND SH. BABU LAL, SH. GANPAT LAL AND SH. NETRAPAL, ALL SONS OF L ATE SH. AMARCHAND. THOUGHTHE HUF IS STILL KNOWN AS M/S AMARCHAND HUF, IN ESSENCE, IT IS THE HUF WHICH CONSISTS OF SH. SUKH DEV AS KARTA AND COP ARCENERS ARE SMT. CHUNNI DEVI, SH. BABU LAL, SH GANPAT LAL AND SH. NE TRAPAL. THE ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, HAS RIGHTLY BEEN DONE IN THE NAME OF HUF CONSISTING OF ABOVE SAID PERSONS. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIR MITY IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN BRINGING TO TAX THE LONG CAPIT AL GAINS ARISING ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE HANDS OF THE HUF C ONSISTING OF SH. SUKH DEV, SMT CHUNNI DEVI, SH. BABU LAL, SH. GANPAT LAL AND S H. NETRAPAL. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31/03/2017 . SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 490/JP/2016 M/S AMARCHAND HUF VS. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR 14 JAIPUR DATED:- 31/ 03/2017. *GANESH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S AMARCHAND HUF 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT-2 , JAIPUR 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE CIT(A)-2, JAIPUR 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.490/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR