9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee had originally declared capital loss of ₹ 27.30 lakhs, due to some computational error. However, in the revised return of income, the assessee-HUF herein has declared capital gains as nil, after claiming deduction u/s 54B of the IT Act. It can be noticed that the assessee-HUF, in two occasions, i.e., in the original return and in revised return of income, has conscious declared the capital in its hands. Accordingly, there is merit in the submission of Ld D.R that the assessee has taken a conscious decision to file return of income in the status of HUF only. Assessee has not brought any new material on record to show that the land actually belonged to individual status. As rightly pointed out by the ld.CIT(A), the onus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nwal, for a consideration of ₹ 13.05 lakhs. However, Shri Rajesh Runwal had agreed before the ADIT(Inv.), Belgaum that the sale consideration was 34.60 lakhs, though the conveyance deed was executed for ₹ 13.05 lakhs. Accordingly, in the return of income filed by the assessee in pursuance of notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act, the assessee also declared sale consideration at ₹ 34.60 lakhs and accordingly computed capital loss. Subsequently, the assessee-HUF filed revised return of income declaring capital gain as nil , after claiming deduction u/s 54B of the IT Act, 1961. The deduction u/s 54B of the Act is allowed against the capital gains arising on sale of agricultural land, which falls in the category of capital asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ins in the hands of HUF. The assessee also furnished copies of documents pertaining to purchase of lands. In view of the new claim put forth, the Tribunal restored the issue of determination of status to the file of the AO, vide its order dated 18-10-2007 passed in IT No.360(B)/2006. 6. In the set aside proceedings, the AO took the view that the land belonged to HUF only and accordingly, took the view that the capital gains was rightly assessed in the hands of the HUF. 7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the order of the AO with the following observations in the second round of proceedings:- 7. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is individual status. When assessee claims his status is different from what he himself had voluntarily filed before department, the onus will be on him to establish the facts with evidence. In the absence of evidence AO cannot give different finding than what was available on record. Asessee did not discharge his onus , hence his claim of change of status was not accepted by AO. 9.2 No new evidence to establish the status of assessee as individual was brought out by the assessee either during the remand proceedings or during the appellate proceedings. 9.3 The AO in his remand report dated 27/07-2015, has clearly stated that no new evidence was produced by the AR other than those submitted earlier before the AO while passing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e IT Act, 1961. The ld.AR submitted that the ratio of the above said decision shall squarely apply to the instant case also, as the assessee, in the instant case, has utilized the capital gains in purchase of new agricultural land and hence, there is no requirement of making deposit into capital gains account scheme. 10. The ld. DR, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee itself has declared capital gain in the hands of HUF and has claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act, 1961. It was a conscious decision of the assessee to declare the capital gains in the status of HUF. However, since the deduction u/s 54B of the Act was not available to HUF, the assessee has changed its stand and claimed that the land belonged to individual capacity. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
