9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Assessment of income from property in individual capacity, Capacity of assessee as individual and HUF, Challenge to AAC's orders, Addition of income by ITO, Justification of adding back income. Analysis: The case involved two appeals by the assessee against the orders of the AAC upholding the assessments made by the ITO in both years. The assessee claimed to have capacities as an individual and as a HUF, filing returns accordingly. However, the ITO observed that the property in question belonged to the individual, not the alleged HUF. The ITO added the income from the property to the individual's assessment for both years, which was endorsed by the AAC, leading to the appeals. The ITO's decision was based on the belief that the property belonged to the individual, not the HUF, as claimed by the assessee. The ITO detailed the sources of investment in the property, including funds from the father, sale proceeds, and personal earnings. The ITO concluded that the property was purchased by the individual and not by the alleged HUF, leading to the addition of income from the property to the individual's assessment. In the appeal before the ITAT, it was noted that the assessee did not challenge the findings of the ITO regarding the HUF assessment. The ITAT held that since the assessee had not challenged the HUF assessment and had accepted it on a protective basis, there was no justification for adding the income from the property to the individual's income. The ITAT concluded that if the ITO did not treat the HUF as an AOP, there was no basis for adding the income to the individual's assessment. As a result, the ITAT deleted the additions made by the ITO in both years and allowed the appeals filed by the assessee.
|
