TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 933
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Kumar (Great Grand Son) by survivorship to the HUF of Shri Naveen Kumar Tyagi, incorrectly relying on S. 18 of the UP Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, ignoring S.37, which clearly provides for treating the Jt. Hindu Family as a separate unit. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in failing to consider that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has not abolished the structure of a Joint-Hindu Mitakshara family, it in fact enlarges the concept, by substituting S.6 to bring the daughter at par with a son, making her a coparcener, so that now every son and daughter acquires by birth a coparcenary interest in the ancestral property. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the claim of the HUF, merely on the ground that the bigger family Rameshwer Dayal Tyagi (HUF), who received the compensation on account of acquisition of family Agriculture land by the state Govt, did not file any Return of Income under the Act, ignoring that agricultural income was not liable to tax under section 10(37) of I. T. Act, 1961 and the family had no other income. 6. That the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... error of non disclosure of interest of income hence undoubtedly it can be inferred that inspite of huge receipt of interest income, he has not disclosed this income under the impression that it is exempt from tax but the action of the assessee gives impression that he is trying to mislead the department. In fact this interest income on which TDS also made but as non disclosure was beneficial in terms of amount of tax involved hence he preferred to keep it out of records assuming that it is exempt. It is learnt that scrutiny proceedings on identical nature in the case of assessee's brother namely Sri Naresh Tyagi and Satish Tyagi are pending for disposal. On 16.10.2014, the learned counsel of the assessee come up with a different stand (i) That ancestral lands were acquired by Noida Authority and compensation awarded in 1989 to the father of the assessee in his HUF capacity and no taxes were paid. (ii) That the corpus of the HUF of father under the name of Sri R.D.Tyagi HUF existed in the form of lands and other properties and compensation received by the father in his HUF status and invested further in the various assets. (iii) That the interest income on delayed compe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at it is taxable in individual capacity. Para-2 of citation putforth by the assessee went against the assessee therefore, income from ancestral properties would be included in the individual hands and not in the capacity of HUF. Following the above directions which are obviously applicable to all co-owners including my assessee, the assessment order is passed on the same line but before summing up the case, following facts need to be mentioned:- It is a fact that assessee has attempted to evade the interest income received by him in his individual capacity. Fie has provided his individual PAN to the Noida Authority that is why interest is appearing in his 26AS. This is purely an after thought. There was no partition/setting up of an HUF at any stage. In the initial stage(vide reply on 15.9.2014), the assessee took plea that he was under the impression that interest received on compensation is exempt The reply revealed that he was in a mood to pay the taxes. But in reply dated 16.10.2014, the assessee took U turn and started claiming interest belonged to HUF. Apart from directions issued by the .TOT,Range-2, Noida there is no ambiguity about the treatment of interest which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of the full blood brother of the appellant where also the same issue was raised I have decided both these issues against the appellant and in favour of Revenue. Respectfully following my earlier order there was no such HUF in subsistence and the compensation received by the appellant is to be taxed as income of the appellant and not as the income of the alleged HUF as has been sought to be done by the Id. counsel of the appellant." 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the present appeal is filed by the assessee before this Tribunal. 6. I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether the impugned agricultural land was ancestral coparcenary property passed on from Shri Ghisa to the joint families of Fateh Singh (Son), Rameshwer Dayal (Grand Son) and Naveen Kumar (Great Grand Son) by survivorship to the HUF of Shri Naveen Kumar Tyagi, incorrectly relying on S. 18 of the UP Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, ignoring S.37, which clearly provides for treating the Jt. Hindu Family as a separate unit. The main crux of the case lay in the fact of non -payment of tax by the HUF, which has n....