9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of HUF before the AO and there cannot be any grievance to the assessee before us in these proceedings. Therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed as not maintainable. - ITA Nos. 615/Hyd/2016 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2017 - SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri S. Rama Rao For The Revenue : Smt. Suman Malik ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-9, Hyderabad, dated 23/12/2015 for AY 2005-06. 2. On perusal of record, we find that the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 9 days. To this effect, the assessee filed a petition request ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.2004 vide registered sale deed no. 223/2005. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee expressed his inability to produce the proof for investment made in purchase of property and the basis for adopting the cost of acquisition at ₹ 480/- per sq. yrd. The Assessing Officer adopted the cost of acquisition at ₹ 50 Sq.yrd as on 01.04.1981 and accordingly completed the assessment. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and submitted that he is a small milk vendor and he is a Karta of HUF and that his HUF is the joint owner of the land along with his four sons, who sold the said land for ₹ 22,00,000/- and received his share amounting to ₹ 4,40,000/-. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffect that the capital gains arising on the transfer of subject property had to be assessed in the hands of Andela Sattaiah (HUF) and Andela Rama Krishan under explanation 3 to section 153 r.w.s. 150(2) of the IT Act, 1961 so as to enable the undersigned to initiate reassessment proceedings u/s 147 in the hands of Andela Sattaiah (HUF) and Andela Ramakrishna (HUF). 5.1 A copy of the remand report was forwarded to the assessee for his comments by the CIT(A). In response, the assessee vide letter dt. 06.08.2014 contended that the sale transaction was indeed between HUF and Smt. G Yashoda Devi but the proceedings were initiated by the department in the hands of the individual. The assessee further contended that though the department rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sferred is only terrace rights and not vacant land is not adjudicated upon as the assessee has not raised this issue in the grounds of appeal. However, since the said property relates to HUF and not individual, the assessment ought to have been made in the capacity of HUF. Hence, the addition made in the individual capacity is not sustainable and is hereby deleted. But the Assessing Officer is directed to take necessary action in bringing this income to tax in the hands of Sri A. Sattaiah HUF. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is erroneous to the extent it is prejudicial to the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material facts on record. On perusal of the ld. CIT(A) s order, CIT(A) has directed the AO to take necessary action in bringing the income to tax in the hands of HUF. For this direction, the counsel for the assessee made an objection that such direction cannot be given in the case of the assessee, as the HUF and the assessee are two distinct and different persons for the income tax purposes. We note that assessee has raised a specific ground before the CIT(A) that this income cannot be taxed in the hands of assessee, but, should be assessed in the hands of HUF . The ld. CIT(A) has, thus, accepted the assessee s contention and accordingly directed the AO. 9.1 Ld. AR has objected to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
