9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alone would get attracted and not Section 56(2) was not considered by the Tribunal and therefore the legal plea raised by the assessee has been totally ignored - the Tribunal has not considered the legal plea so raised and therefore prejudice is caused to the appellant in not considering this legal plea – also, the issue as to the applicability of Section 64(2), as contended, should have been considered by the Tribunal in the manner in which the assessee justifies the transaction - the issue raised by the appellant requires an in-depth analysis of both the provisions, viz., Section 56(2)(vii) and Section 64(2) of the Income Tax Act – thus, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the AO for fresh considerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in not even citing the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vineetkumar Raghavijibhai Bhalodia which had held that a gift received from relatives is not taxable under Section 56(2) of the Act after taking into account the amendment made to the Act? 2. The assessment in this case relates to the assessment year 2008-09. The appellant/assessee, during the birthday celebration on attaining the age of 60, received gifts from his son, wife, mother and daughter amounting to ₹ 13,17,300/-. All the amounts were received through cheques in the name of the individual and the same had been subsequently deposited in the HUF account. The cheques, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee is before this Court. 5. Heard Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for the assessee and Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6. The primary plea of the appellant/assessee consistently before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and before the Tribunal that Section 64 (2) of the Income Tax Act alone would get attracted to the facts of the present case and not Section 56(2) of the Income Tax Act was not considered by the Tribunal and therefore the legal plea raised by the assessee has been totally ignored by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal which give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... planation - For the purpose of this clause relative means _ (i) spouse of the individual; (ii) brother or sister of the individual; (iii) brother or sister of the spouse of the individual; (iv) brother or sister of either of the parents of the individual; (vi) any lineal ascendant or descendant of the individual; (vi) any lineal ascendant or descendant of the spouse of the individual; (vii) spouse of the person referred to in clause (ii to (vi); (vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the 1st day of October, 2009 - (a)...... (b) any immovable property without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e converted property or any part thereof shall be deemed to arise to the individual and not to the family; (c)..... (emphasis supplied) 8. The consistent plea of the appellant before the Tribunal as well as before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is that the transaction in question would get attracted in terms of Section 64(2) of the Income Tax Act. That argument was not considered at all. On the contrary, the Authorities proceeded on the basis that the reliance placed by the Original Authority on Section 56(2) would be correct for the transaction in question. 9. We find that the appellant has invoked Section 64(2) of the Act, which has been totally ignored by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
