9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sale consideration has not been deposited in the HUF’s bank account. No substantial question of law arises. - Decided against the assesse. - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 842 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 16-7-2018 - MR. M.R. SHAH AND MR. A.Y. KOGJE, JJ. For The Petitioner : Darshan R Patel (8486) ORAL ORDER ( PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 30.11.2017 passed in ITA No.418/Ahd/2014 for Assessment Year 2009-10, by which the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the assessee and has confirmed the order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals), by which the learned CIT (Appeals) upheld the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) of the Act was issued. That during the course of assessment proceedings, as per the AIR information received from Sub-registrar officer to RUVA, Bhavnagar, it was found that the assessee had sold the immovable property being survey no.3117, plot No.1877, admeasuring 1448.54 sq. mtrs. along with structure standing thereon for consideration of ₹ 1,69,00,000/-. On verification of the accounts, it was found tat the assessee has not shown income from capital gain arising out of sale of the above property and therefore, show cause notice dated 01.10.2011 was issued to the assessee requiring him to explain why capital gain arising out of sale of the above property should not be computed and added to the total income of the assessee. In re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd Shri Darsan Patel, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-assessee at length. 5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the learned CIT (Appeals), by giving cogent reasons in paras-5.1 and 5.2, has upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer, by which the property sold was held to be owned by the assessee and not the assessee s HUF. Paras-5.1 reads as under:- 5.1 The 3rd ground of appeal is regarding the action of the assessing officer in holding that long term capital gains has arisen in the hands of the appellant in his individual capacity and not to his HUF and thus making an addition of ₹ 20,63,888/-. The assessing officer has discussed this issue in detail in paras 2.1 to 2.5 of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the property since he has executed the sale deed in that capacity. The sale deed nowhere shown that the appellant was signing the conveyance deed as karta of his HUF. The same is evidenced by the fact that the PAN used was that of the appellant as an individual and not of his HUF. It is pertinent to note at this stage that the appellant has been filing the return of income of his HUF and hence no argument can be taken that the HUF was not having a PA No. It is equally pertinent to note from the facts of the case that admittedly returns of income of appellants HUF has been filed in the past and the impugned property has not been shown in such returns as property belonging to the HUF. The intention of the appellant thus are very clear that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F s bank account. 7. There are concurrent findings of facts recorded by all the authorities below on appreciation of evidence and consideration of surrounding circumstances, viz. (I) that the same was executed by the assessee in his individual capacity and not as karta of the HUF, (II) that in the same deed, PAN of the assessee in his individual capacity has been given and not PAN of the HUF, (III) that in the earlier years, property in question was not shown as owned by the HUF in the return of HUF and (IV) that the sale consideration has not been deposited in the HUF s bank account. 8. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises. The present appeal deserves to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
