2014 (1) TMI 855 - AT - Income Tax

Capital gains to be taxable in whose hands Exemption u/s 54F - Revenue was of the view that after selling of the property, the property would be considered in the hands of HUF Held that - The assessee had himself returned capital gains in his individual return and claimed exemption under section 54F of the Act - assessee had made certain claims for sale and acquisition for assessment year 2005-06 as well as assessment year 2006-07 - the matter requires fresh look by the Assessing Officer - Assessing Officer has to verify whether the claim of assessee that the property belonged to HUF and whether the new investments made satisfied the conditions set out in Section 54F of the Act, before allowing the claim - Assessing Officer has to look into the veracity of the declaration made by the assessee throwing his personal property into the common hotchpotch of the HUF of which assessee was the kartha - Assessing Officer has to verify whether the returns of the HUF were filed before or after the filing of the individual return Matter remitted back to the Ao for fresh adjudication Decided in favour of Revenue.

Issues:
1. Whether the properties sold by the assessee belonged to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or to the individual assessee.
2. Whether the assessee is eligible for claiming exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Whether the previous decisions on similar claims made by the assessee in the assessment year 2006-07 are binding.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision that the properties sold by the assessee belonged to an HUF, ruling that the capital gains should be considered in the hands of the HUF. The assessee claimed that the property was thrown into the HUF by a Deed of Declaration. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee, noting that the HUF had filed returns for the relevant years and had no other residential assets, making it eligible for exemption under section 54F. The Revenue argued that the assessee filed returns in his individual capacity, showing ownership of the property, and that the CIT(A) erred in considering it as HUF property. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the assessee's claims and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for further examination.

2. The Assessing Officer denied the claim of exemption under section 54F, citing that the assessee owned more than one house and had made a similar claim in a previous assessment year that was not allowed. The CIT(A) supported the assessee's claim, stating that the HUF was eligible for exemption and had no other residential assets. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Assessing Officer to verify the veracity of the declaration throwing the property into the HUF and to assess whether the conditions of section 54F were met before allowing the claim. The issue was remitted for fresh consideration.

3. The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision based on a previous appeal for the assessment year 2006-07, where the claim was partly allowed. The Tribunal noted that the previous decision could not be considered a precedent, as the Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of verifying the ownership status and the timing of returns filed by the HUF in relation to the individual return. The matter was sent back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination to determine the eligibility of the assessee for the claimed deduction under section 54F.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal for statistical purposes and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a thorough reassessment in accordance with the law, giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case. The judgment emphasized the need for a detailed verification of ownership and compliance with the provisions of section 54F before allowing the exemption claim.

← Previous Next →