9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 98,820/-. A search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') was carried out in the case of M/s. A.S. Steel Traders on 11.10.2012 and in the course of search, the document No.5019 of 2011 of SRO, Anakapalli was found and seized vide Annexure- AJ/O1, which revealed that the assessee had sold the land admeasuring 6 acres in survey No.1632/8 of Anakapalle along with 5 others in the capacity of HUF to the individuals Shri A. Jagadish and others. The assessee along with others have received the sale consideration of Rs. 1.20 crores against the market value adopted by the SRO at Rs. 2.10 crores for stamp duty purpose. However, the assessee did not disclose the sale consideration as capital gains. Hence, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the A.O. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Appearing for the assessee, the Ld. A.R. argued that the assessee HUF has sold the property and the coparcener had acquired the residential house for which the source was funded by the HUF partially and balance was met out of borrowed funds. One of the co-parcener had acquired the property and got registered in the name of the co-parcener Mr. G.R. Murthy Setty, S/o Nageswara Rao. Since HUF is not entitled for the loan, Mr. Rama Murthy Setty who is having salary income has taken loan from LIC of India and accordingly the asset was purchased in the name of Mr. R. Murthy Setty, one of the copar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te repayment of the loan, which was granted to the individual co-parcener Mr. G. Rama Murthy Setty, S/o Nageswara Rao. The assessee also declared the rental income in its hands and the loan is being repaid by the HUF. Co-parcener is one of equal shareholder of the HUF. Under the similar facts and circumstances, the coordinate bench of ITAT, Chennai in the case of Purnachand & Family (HUF) cited (supra) held that the property acquired in the name of Karta is entitled for the deduction u/s 54F of the Act. For ready reference, we extract para Nos.6 to 10 of the order cited (supra). "6. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the material available on record. The assessee sold a capital asset namely diamond and cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned representative for the assessee, provisions of section 54F of the Act, requires the assessee to purchase a property one year before the date of the sale or two years after the date of the sale of asset. If the assessee could not invest within the time frame provided in the Act, the same has to be deposited in any one of the capital gain account within the due date provided for filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. No one could expect the assessee to utilize the sale proceeds of the capital asset or the capital gain arising from such sale before the date of the sale of the capital asset. The assessee cannot have any sale proceeds before the date of the sale. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
