9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1369 - HC - Income TaxTaxability of Capital Gains from sale of property - income to be included in the hands of assessee or HUF of the assessee - Held that - There are concurrent findings of facts recorded by all the authorities below on appreciation of evidence and consideration of surrounding circumstances, viz. (I) that the same was executed by the assessee in his individual capacity and not as karta of the HUF, (II) that in the same deed, PAN of the assessee in his individual capacity has been given and not PAN of the HUF, (III) that in the earlier years, property in question was not shown as owned by the HUF in the return of HUF and (IV) that the sale consideration has not been deposited in the HUF s bank account. No substantial question of law arises. - Decided against the assesse.
Issues:
1. Taxation of long term capital gain on sale of immovable property in the hands of the appellant. 2. Mistake of mentioning PAN of the appellant instead of the HUF in the sale deed. 3. Taxation of long term capital gain on sale of immovable property owned by HUF in the hands of the appellant. 4. Assessment of tax on long term capital gain on sale of immovable property already assessed in the hands of the HUF. Analysis: Issue 1: The appellant contested the taxation of long term capital gain on the sale of immovable property in their hands, arguing that the property belonged to the HUF and the sale consideration was deposited in the HUF's bank account. However, the Assessing Officer held that the property belonged to the appellant individually based on various factors, including the sale deed, PAN number used, and bank account where the sale proceeds were deposited. The CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT upheld this decision, concluding that the property was owned by the appellant individually, not the HUF. The court agreed with this assessment, stating that the appellant's actions indicated an intention to treat the property as individual, not HUF-owned, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Issue 2: The appellant raised a concern regarding the mistake of mentioning the appellant's PAN instead of the HUF's in the sale deed and its impact on the chargeable capital gain. The court noted that the sale deed clearly identified the appellant as the seller in an individual capacity, using the PAN of the appellant, and the sale proceeds were deposited into the appellant's individual bank account. These factors supported the conclusion that the property was treated as belonging to the appellant individually, justifying the assessment of capital gain in the appellant's hands. Issue 3: The appellant questioned the taxation of long term capital gain on the sale of immovable property owned by the HUF but assessed in the appellant's hands. Despite arguments that the property belonged to the HUF and the consideration was reflected in the HUF's return, the court found that the appellant's actions and documentation indicated individual ownership, including the absence of the property in the HUF's past returns and the deposit of sale proceeds in the appellant's individual bank account. This led to the confirmation of the tax assessment in the appellant's individual capacity. Issue 4: The appellant argued against being assessed for tax on long term capital gain on property already assessed in the HUF's hands. However, the court found that the evidence and circumstances supported the individual ownership of the property by the appellant, as demonstrated by the sale deed, PAN usage, and bank transactions. The consistent treatment of the property as individual, not HUF-owned, led to the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmation of the tax assessment on the appellant for the capital gain.
|
