2020 (2) TMI 20

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... hands of assessee HUF, while the claim of the assessee is that the capital gains has arisen in the individual capacity of the assessee. 3. This is the second round of proceeding. The assessee herein, i.e., Guruppa P Gawali (HUF) had filed its return of income declaring capital loss of Rs. 27.30 lakhs for the assessment year 2002-03. The capital loss has arisen on sale of agricultural land. It is also pertinent to note that the assessee has filed the return of income in pursuance of notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act, 1961. The agricultural land sold by the assessee was located within the Municipal limits and the same was sold to a person named Sri Rajesh Runwal, for a consideration of Rs. 13.05 lakhs. However, Shri Rajesh Runwal had agre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....puting capital gains, the AO adopted the cost of agricultural land as on 01-04-1981 at Rs. 10,000/- per acre, which was also accepted by the authorized representative of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO computed the capital gains on sale of agriculture land at Rs. 31.91 lakhs and assessed the same. The assessee could not succeed in the appeal filed before the ld.CIT(A). Hence, it preferred appeal before the Tribunal in the first round of proceedings. 5. The assessee contended before the ITAT that the agriculture land actually belonged to him in his individual capacity and hence, the AO was not justified in assessing the capital gains in the hands of HUF. The assessee also furnished copies of documents pertaining to purchase of lands. In v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ade. Hence, status of assessee is decided to be 'HUF' only. 9.1 AR did not produce any evidence either during the assessment or during the remand proceedings or during the appellant proceedings in support of change of his status. He voluntarily filed return of income in response to notice u/ 148 in the status of HUF only giving family tree etc., The issue was not raised before the AO or before CIT(A) either. Even for the first time he raised the issue before ITAT, he did not produce any evidence before AO during re-assessment proceedings in obedience to ITAT order. He did not furnish any new evidence in support of his 'individual' status. When assessee claims his status is different from what he himself had voluntarily filed before depart....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nto trouble on mistake of law. With regard to computation of capital gains, the ld.AR submitted that the AO has rejected the claim for deduction u/s 54B of the IT Act, inter-alia for the reason that the assessee has not deposited unutilized capital gains amount in the capital gains account scheme. The ld.AR submitted that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has taken a view in the case of CIT Vs Shri K Ramachandra Rao (ITA No.47 of 2014 and others dated 14-07-2014) that the deposit under capital gains scheme is not warranted if the capital gains is used for purchase of asset as contemplated in sec.54F of the 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 assesse....