TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 1058
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by a common order. 3. In ITA No. 2806/Del/2019, following grounds have been raised by the assessee: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order under section 250 of the Act dated 15/02/2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("Ld. CIT(A)") ("Impugned Order")confirming the order u/s 143 (3) of the Act by the Learned Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") dated 12/12/2017 ("Assessment Order") is erroneous and bad in law. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the Assessment Order treating an amount of Rs.39,62,133/- as capital gain assessed in the status of individual. Without appreciating the facts that the land in question was HUF Land and hence liable to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty was also wrong in confirming it." 3. The undisputed fact of the case are as under: 4. The assessee sold agricultural land measuring 4 Kanals for a consideration of Rs.80,00,000/- and purchased another agricultural land in the name of the wife and claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has been denied by the ld. CIT(A). 5. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before us. 6. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The issue examined is whether the agricultural land which is the ancestral property belonging to HUF and its subsequent sale and purchase of another agricultural land by the wife is eligible for deduction or not. 8. As stated under the facts, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isting of himself and his 3 sons, wherein 1/3 share was given to each son. Hence as such 1/3 share of said HUF property was received by Sh. Satyawan the assessee, as his share in the said HUF agricultural land. There was a Hibbanama. The A.O. failed to acknowledge the Intkall dated 06.01.1942 and other documents placed on record evidencing the hierarchy of inheritance of land to Sh. Dharam Singh during 1941, much before the promulgation of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. As the land in question, was acquired by Sh. Dharam Singh much before 1956 it was an existing HUF. 13. The Assessing Officer relied on the judmgnet of CWT vs. Chander Sen (1986) 161 ITR 0370 which states as follows: "HUF or individual property- Separate property of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Similarly, in the case of Yudhishter vs. Ashok Kumar relied upon by the revenue wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India just made reference of WTO vs. Chander Sen and reiterated its position as taken under the Chander Sen (supra). 16. While in the case of the assessee the facts are different, the property was inherited by Sh. Dharam Singh, (the father of assessee) long before 1956, by natural inheritance of ancestral property and then by assessee by way of a partition in the life time of his father Sh. Dharam Singh, who own the said property as Karta of HUF consisting of himself (Sh. Dharam Singh) and his sons, including the assessee. 17. The judgment in the case of Sh. Surinder Kumar vs. Sh. Dhani Ram and others CS (OS) No. 17....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he facts of the case in hand and supports the contention of the assessee. 19. To sum up the following proposition evolved, in the case of the assessee: i) The property the agricultural land inherited by the father of assessee under natural succession in 1941 before the promulgation of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Hence it was held by him in the status of HUF consisting of himself and its three sons including Sh. Satyawan the assessee as co-parceners. ii) The said HUF consisting of Sh. Dharam Singh and his sons including Sh. Satyawan, was further partitioned in the life time of the Karta and divided among the 3 sons. It being a HUF property in the hands of Sh. Dharam Singh, the father of assessee, the assessee Sh. Satyawa....