1982 (7) TMI 219 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 54(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).
2. Classification of capital gain as long-term or short-term.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 54(1) to HUF:
The primary issue was whether the benefits of Section 54(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides for exemption from tax on capital gains, can be claimed by a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The assessee argued that under Section 2(31), the term "person" includes an HUF, and thus, an HUF should be entitled to the benefits under Section 54(1). The assessee's representative cited various cases to support this argument, including K.L Viswambharan & Bros. v. CIT and CIT v. R.S. Nikhera Construction Co., emphasizing that an HUF is a group of individuals capable of having a residence.

However, the Tribunal referred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in Shrigopal Rameshwardas v. Addl. CIT, which held that the word "assessee" in Section 54, construed in its context, refers only to living persons and not fictional or artificial juridical persons like an HUF. The Tribunal also noted that the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Smt. Godavaridevi Saraf mandates that if there is a judgment of a High Court on a particular point and no contra decision, the Tribunal is bound to follow that judgment. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the benefits of Section 54(1) are not available to an HUF.

2. Classification of Capital Gain as Long-term or Short-term:
The second issue was whether the capital gain arising from the transfer of the bungalow should be classified as long-term or short-term. The assessee contended that since the land was purchased in 1966 and the construction was completed in 1973, the asset was held for more than 60 months, qualifying it for long-term capital gain treatment. The assessee also cited various cases and argued that the land and building should be valued separately.

The ITO, however, held that the bungalow, which was transferred in 1975, was not in existence in 1966 and only took shape in 1973. Thus, the asset was considered a composite one, and since it was sold within 36 months from its completion, the gain was classified as short-term. The AAC upheld this view, emphasizing that the property was sold as a composite asset.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that the land was purchased in 1966 and the construction was completed in 1973. It noted that the correct value of the plot and the building should be determined separately to arrive at the correct figure of the capital gain. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below on this point and restored the matter to the file of the ITO with a direction to give a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to produce relevant material and determine the correct market value of the plot and the building separately.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal. It upheld the view that the benefits of Section 54(1) are not available to an HUF, following the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision. However, it agreed with the assessee's contention regarding the classification of capital gain and directed the ITO to re-evaluate the market value of the plot and the building separately to determine the correct figure of the capital gain.