9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 722 - AT - Income TaxStatus of HUF - whether CIT(A) erred in granting the assessee the status HUF & deleting the addition made being the capital asset treated as income of AOP - Held that - CIT(A) while deleting the addition by his well reasoned order has given a finding that after perusing the various documents, the gift of Rs. 11,000/- has been rightly shown as capital of HUF of Paresh M. Shah HUF. With respect to gift of Rs. 5 lacs CIT(A) has held that gift was recorded in memorandum of gift, & it was reflected in the return of donor and as well as ledger of assessee, which along with other documentary evidence support the contention that the assessee had received the gifts. He has further held that provisions of sub section 9 of Section 171 are effective for partitions effected after 31.12.1978 but the partition of Mansukhlal M. Shah HUf has been effected on 1.11.1978. As Revenue could not controvert the findings of CIT(A) no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A) and thus dismiss the appeal of Revenue.
Issues:
1. Status of HUF claimed by the assessee 2. Treatment of capital asset as income of AOP 3. Applicability of Section 68 on capital generation 4. Validity of gifts received by the assessee Status of HUF claimed by the assessee: The appeal was filed against the order of CIT (A)-Valsad for the assessment year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer questioned the creation of the HUF by the assessee and found it necessary to verify the claim. The assessee explained that the HUF was formed through a gift from the father of the karta. However, the Assessing Officer concluded that the claim of HUF should have been made earlier, and no proof was provided regarding the utilization of the property received. The Assessing Officer treated the entity as an AOP and taxed it accordingly. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee, stating that an HUF is created by law and not by acts of parties. The CIT(A) found merit in the arguments and evidence presented by the appellant, supporting the creation of the HUF and the gifts received. Treatment of capital asset as income of AOP: The Assessing Officer observed that the capital account of the HUF had a balance, which the assessee could not explain satisfactorily. Section 68 was deemed applicable, and the entire capital introduced during the year was added to income. The CIT(A), after considering submissions and evidence, deleted the addition, stating that the capital was rightly shown as belonging to the HUF. The CIT(A) found that the gifts received were duly recorded and reflected in the relevant documents, supporting the contention that the assessee had received the gifts. The Revenue's appeal against the CIT(A)'s decision was dismissed. Applicability of Section 68 on capital generation: The Assessing Officer applied Section 68 due to the lack of satisfactory explanation regarding the generation of capital. However, the CIT(A) overturned this decision after reviewing the evidence provided by the assessee, which included documents supporting the gifts received and their proper recording. The CIT(A) found no reason to interfere with his decision, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Validity of gifts received by the assessee: The gifts received by the assessee were a point of contention during the assessment proceedings. The Revenue questioned the timing and validity of the gifts, highlighting a gap between the receipt of the gifts and the execution of the memorandum of gift. The assessee argued that the HUF was created automatically upon marriage and provided evidence to support the receipt of gifts. The CIT(A) upheld the validity of the gifts based on the evidence presented, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. In conclusion, the ITAT Ahmedabad upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and affirming the validity of the HUF status claimed by the assessee, the treatment of capital assets, and the gifts received. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of each issue raised during the assessment and appeal process, emphasizing the legal and procedural aspects governing the taxation of HUFs and capital transactions.
|
