9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 41 - AT - Income TaxAddition made u/s 56 of the Act - Gift received from HUF - Whether a gift received by the assessee from the HUF is eligible for being considered as a gift received from a relative so as to qualify for exemption from tax Held that - The CIT(A) was of the view 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 - the word relative includes relatives and such relatives coming together as a group and constituting themselves as a legal entity, viz. HUF , are not disentitled from their original right of giving gifts to any eligible relative either within or outside the ring of HUF the decision in Harshabhai Dahyalal Vaidhya(HUF) V/s. ITO 2013 (11) TMI 617 - ITAT AHMEDABAD relied upon - Thus, there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) Decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Erroneous order of the CIT(A). 2. Confirmation of addition by the Assessing Officer based on re-assessment. 3. Taxability of a gift received from HUF under Section 56 of the Income-tax Act. 4. Applicability of CBDT's Instruction No. 3/2011 regarding audit objections. Detailed Analysis: 1. Erroneous order of the CIT(A): The Revenue contended that the order passed by the CIT(A) was erroneous both on facts and in law. The CIT(A) had allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the gift received from the HUF was not taxable under Section 56 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Confirmation of addition by the Assessing Officer based on re-assessment: The Assessing Officer had reopened the assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to bring to tax a gift of Rs. 30,65,000 received by the assessee from M/s. Raghuveera HUF. The Assessing Officer concluded that an HUF could not be considered a 'relative' within the meaning of Section 56(2)(v) of the Act, and thus, the gift was taxable. 3. Taxability of a gift received from HUF under Section 56 of the Income-tax Act: The core issue was whether a gift received from an HUF could be considered a gift from a 'relative' and thus be exempt from tax. The CIT(A) held that HUF is a group of relatives and, therefore, gifts from an HUF to its members should be considered as gifts from relatives. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Rajkot Bench of the Tribunal in Vineet Kumar Rajharibhai Bhalodia V/s. ITO (46 SOT 97) and the definition of 'relative' under Section 56(2)(v) of the Act. The Tribunal supported this view, citing that a group of relatives forming an HUF does not lose their identity as relatives and that gifts from HUF members should be exempt from tax. The Tribunal also referenced the Ahmedabad Bench's decision in Harshabhai Dahyalal Vaidhya(HUF) V/s. ITO (155 TTJ (Ahd) 71), which held that gifts from an HUF to an eligible relative are exempt from tax. 4. Applicability of CBDT's Instruction No. 3/2011 regarding audit objections: The Revenue argued that the case fell under the exceptionary clause of CBDT's Instruction No. 3/2011, as the assessment was a result of remedial action to an Audit Objection of Revenue Audit. However, the Tribunal did not find this argument sufficient to overturn the CIT(A)'s decision. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that an HUF is a group of relatives and gifts from an HUF to its members are exempt from tax under Section 56 of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s decision. The appeal was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in court on 3.3.2014.
|
