TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 796
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 3(4), Chennai for the assessment year 2012-13 u/s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 12.03.2015. 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the revision order passed u/s.263 of the Act, by the PCIT without jurisdiction and holding that the original asset in question was not of HUF and therefore directed the AO for clubbing as per provisions of section 64(2)(b) of the Act. For this assessee has filed following six concise grounds:- 1. The Ld. Principal Commissioner's order u/s.263 of the Act is without jurisdiction and he has erred both in law and on facts, and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 2. The Ld. Principal Commissioner has failed to appreciate th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ennai. According to assessee, the HUF was formed on 07.07.1975 upon the marriage of its karta Shri R. Mahadevan with Smt. Bhavani Mahadevan. Out of marital knot, karta has two daughters. It was claimed by assessee that the assessee HUF, through various loans purchased land at Plot No.94, ARN Nagar, Korattur by way of sale deed dated 14.07.1994 in the name of Smt. Bhavani Mahadevan and land at Plot No.II, VGN Avenue, Sennerkuppam Village by way of sale deed dated 03.08.1995 in the name of Smt. Bhavani Mahadevan. It was claimed that the assessee HUF also purchased land at Plot No.1, VGN Avenue, Sennerkuppam Village by way of sale deed dated 09.10.1995 in the name of Shri R. Mahadevan. It was claimed that the assessee HUF had always intended t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... property sold has to be treated as transfer by individuals and not by the HUF. Therefore, the PCIT held the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act by the AO dated 12.03.2015 as erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The assessee contested this claim and stated that these three properties sold by the assessee are of HUF and the long term capital gain arising out of sale of these properties is invested in purchase of residential house at Abiramapuram and claimed deduction u/s.54F of the Act. 4. The PCIT was not convinced with the reply of assessee and he noted that the assessee has earned long term capital gain on account of sale of following three properties of individual Smt. Bhavani Mahadevan and Shri R. Maha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vidences and hence rejected. 8. It is clear from the documentation that the properties have been purchased by the coparceners of the HUF in their individual capacity. If it were treated that the impugned properties were brought into the common HUF hotchpot and thereafter sold by the HUF, as per the provisions of S.64(2)(b), the liability to tax arises in the hands of the individuals. If the scheme of contributing to the HUF hotchpot is not taken into consideration, then the properties sold are that of the individuals. Either way, the taxation of LTCG and allowance of deduction u/s.54F in the hands of the assessee- HUF is not in accordance with law and allowing the same in the assessment order has resulted in an erroneous order, whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the name of HUF. The ld.counsel for the assessee himself in its written submission dated 30.12.2016 before PCIT admitted that these properties were purchased by individuals as mentioned above in the year 1994 & 1995, well before the formation of HUF which was only in AY 1999-2000. It was stated in its reply that the properties were thrown into HUF during assessment year 1999-2000 and therefore, the provisions of section 64(2)(b) of the Act are applicable. The ld.counsel for the assessee before us stated that the returns of income of HUF were filed for assessment year 1998- 99 and the statement of affairs were filed from assessment year 2002-03 with the Department. The ld.counsel for the assessee mainly harped on the fact that he got mar....