9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1243 - AT - Income TaxTaxability of the amount received by the assessee from his HUF, in which he is a coparcener - money received without consideration - Taxability of gift received by the assessee from his HUF u/s. 56(2)(vii) - impugned gift was treated as taxable by the A.O. and the same confirmed by the CIT(A) noting that identical issue had arisen in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 wherein the addition was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) - HELD THAT - We are of the view that the decision of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Pankil Garg 2019 (9) TMI 337 - ITAT CHANDIGARH would squarely apply to the present case following which we hold that the amount received by the assessee from its HUF of ₹ 50 lakhs is not in the nature of any sum received without consideration/gift and therefore not exigible to tax as per provisions of Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act .The addition so made and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) is therefore directed to be deleted. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is accordingly set aside. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of gift received by the assessee from his HUF under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Applicability of Section 10(2) of the Income Tax Act for exemption of the amount received from HUF. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Taxability of Gift Received by the Assessee from His HUF under Section 56(2)(vii): The solitary issue in the appeal concerns the taxability of a ?50,00,000 gift received by the assessee from his HUF under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) treated the gift as taxable, and the CIT(A) confirmed this, noting a similar decision in the assessee's case for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee argued that the gift should not be taxed, citing various Tribunal decisions, including those of the Ahmedabad Tribunal, which held that gifts from HUF to its members are not taxable as they are considered amounts received from "relatives" as per the definition in Section 56(2)(vii). The Tribunal noted that the ITAT has consistently held that sums given by HUF to its members/coparceners are not taxable under Section 56(2)(vii). Significant decisions supporting this view include: - Vineetkumar Raghavjibhai Bhalodia v. ITO - [2011] 140 TTJ (RAJKOT) 58 - Harshadbhai Dahyalal Vaidhya - [2013] 155 TTJ (AHD) 71 - Hemal D. Shaah v. DCIT - ITA No. 2627/MUM/2015 - Shri Pankil Garg v. PCIT, Karnal - ITA NO. 773/CHD/2018 In these cases, the ITAT held that gifts from HUF to its members fall within the exception provided in Section 56(2)(vii) for sums received from relatives. The Tribunal also referred to Section 10(2) of the Act, which exempts amounts given to members of HUF from the HUF's taxable income. 2. Applicability of Section 10(2) for Exemption: The assessee also argued that the amount received should be exempt under Section 10(2) of the Act, which exempts sums received by a member from the HUF's income. The Tribunal noted that the ITAT, in various decisions, has held that amounts given by HUF to its members are exempt under Section 10(2) as they are part of the HUF's taxable income. In the case of Pankil Garg v. PCIT, Karnal, the ITAT Chandigarh Bench held that the amount given by HUF to its member is not a gift but an apportionment of the member's share in the HUF property. Therefore, it does not qualify as a gift under Section 56(2)(vii). The Tribunal emphasized that every member of HUF has a pre-existing right in the HUF property, and any amount given to a member is merely a distribution of what already belongs to them. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal, considering the consistent decisions in favor of the assessee and the detailed reasoning in the case of Pankil Garg v. PCIT, Karnal, held that the amount received by the assessee from his HUF is not in the nature of a gift and hence not taxable under Section 56(2)(vii). The addition made by the A.O. and upheld by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and allowed the assessee's appeal. Conclusion: The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the Tribunal pronounced the order in the open court on 25-03-2022.
|
