ITAT directs AO to review HUF's capital gains tax, potentially deleting individual assessee's tax liability.

The ITAT set aside the ld CIT(A) order and directed the AO to verify if the HUF had been taxed for the capital gains on the land. If so, the tax on the individual assessee should be deleted. The appeals of the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Determining whether the land sold is by HUF or the individual assessee.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the order of the ld CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2009-10 regarding three appeals with similar issues. The case of Narayan Singh was taken as the reference point, and the decision in this appeal would apply to the other cases.

2. The grounds of appeal by the Revenue focused on the status of the assessee and whether the land sold belonged to the HUF or the individual. The AO held that the land falls under the definition of a capital asset and is liable for capital gains tax.

3. The assessee claimed that the land belonged to the HUF, providing evidence of ancestral transfer. The AO requested further evidence but denied the claim due to lack of proof. The AO calculated the Fair Market Value of the land and the Long Term Capital Gains accordingly.

4. The ld CIT(A) allowed the appeal, stating that the land belonged to the HUF based on the Intakal Register and the report of the Naib Tehsildar. The capital gains tax should be levied on the HUF, not the individual assessee.

5. The ITAT set aside the ld CIT(A) order and directed the AO to verify if the HUF had been taxed for the capital gains on the land. If so, the tax on the individual assessee should be deleted. The appeals of the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the decisions made by the authorities involved in the case.

---