Puranchand & Family (HUF), CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

MA 221/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5856 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N MADHAVAN
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI ... , ! '#,% &' BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (( / M.P. NO.221/MDS/2017 (IN I.T.A. NO.2974/MDS/2016) ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD - 12(3), CHENNAI. V. M/S PURANCHAND & FAMILY (HUF), NO.11, LLOYDS LANE, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI - 600 014. PAN : AAEHP 3644 P (,-) /PETITIONER) (,.-// RESPONDENT) ,-) 1 2 /PETITIONER BY : SHRI N. MADHAVAN, ADDL.CIT ,.-/ 1 2 / RESPONDENT BY : NONE 3 1 4% / DATE OF HEARING : 13.10.2017 5'* 1 4% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.10.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS P ETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF T HIS TRIBUNAL DATED 31 ST JANUARY, 2017. 2. NO ONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF ISSU E OF NOTICE BY RPAD. THE REGISTRY HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE POS TAL 2 M.P. NO.221/MDS/17 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AS PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE TO TH E ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE HEARD LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PROCEEDED TO HEAR THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON MER IT. 3. SHRI SHRI N. MADHAVAN, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 42,65,619/- BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') HOLDING THAT THE INVESTME NT WAS NOT MADE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE-HUF BUT IN THE NAME OF SHRI M. PURANCHAND IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. ACCORDING T O THE LD. D.R., THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN THE NAME OF COPARCENERS, ASSESSEE- HUF AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. WHEN THE A TTENTION OF THE LD. D.R. WAS DRAWN TO PAGES 5 & 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS NOT REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF HUF AND PAN OF HUF. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD . D.R., THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 54F OF THE ACT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. D.R. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HUF. EVEN THOUGH HIN DU UNDIVIDED FAMILY IS AN ASSESSABLE UNIT UNDER THE PROVISIONS O F INCOME-TAX ACT, IT HAS NO STATUTORY EXISTENCE UNDER COMMON LAW. TH EREFORE, NO PROPERTY CAN BE REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF HUF. IT HAS TO BE 3 M.P. NO.221/MDS/17 REGISTERED NECESSARILY IN THE NAME OF COPARCENER. WHEN A COPARCENER IS SHOWN AS PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY, O NLY THE COPARCENERS PAN WOULD BE NOTED IN THE SALE DEED AN D NOT THE PAN OF HUF. 5. MOREOVER, WHEN THE INCOME OF THE HUF WAS INVESTE D IN PURCHASING THE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF ANY ONE OF T HE COPARCENERS, THE PROPERTY SO PURCHASED WOULD REMAIN AS PROPERTY OF HUF, HENCE, ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT . THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT THERE IS NO ERROR MUCH LESS PRIMA FACIE ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 31 ST JANUARY, 2017. THEREFORE, THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE HAS NO MERIT AT ALL. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED COURT ON 17 TH OCTOBER, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! '# ) ( ... ) (SANJAY ARORA) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 17 TH OCTOBER, 2017. KRI. 4 M.P. NO.221/MDS/17 1 ,48( 9(*4 /COPY TO: 1. ,-) / PETITIONER 2. ,.-/ /RESPONDENT 3. 3 :4 () /CIT(A) 4. 3 :4 /CIT 5. (; ,4 /DR 6. ) < /GF.