ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(2), BANGALORE vs. SHRI. B K KANAKARAJU, BENGALURU

The Revenue has raised the following grounds 1. The order of CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case.

The brief facts of the case The assessee is an individual. A search u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (the Act) was conducted in the case of the assessee in connection with M/s Telecommunication Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. In response to notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed a letter dated 11/9/2015 enclosing a copy of the return of income filed on 19/8/2013 declaring an income of Rs.2,44,240/- and requesting to treat the return so filed as in response to notice u/s 153A. The assessee along with family members inherited 8 acres 11 guntas of land as part of the family partition executed vide deed dated 28/06/012. Until the partition the said land was a family property belonging to HUF. Post partition one of the brothers was given General Power of Attorney to deal with all the transactions of land. The land was converted into stock in trade u/s 45 and thereafter developed into plot and sold. The AO in the course of assessment treated assessee’s portion of long term capital gains on conversion of land to stock in trade in the individual hands (assessee’s hand) and not to HUF.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A).

Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The ld.AR reiterated the facts submitted before the CIT(A) and mentioned that the said income also got assessed substantially in the hands of the assessee’s HUF and the said assessment is before the CIT(A). The Ld AR therefore prayed that this appeal may also be remanded back to CIT(A)

The ld.DR supported the order of the AO including the income in the hands of the assessee.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We notice that the land was family property until partition and the assessee got the share as part of the partition deed executed on 28/06/2012 and the issue here is whether the income arising out of the sale of the land should be assessed in the hands of the assessee in his individual capacity or in the hands of assessee’s HUF. We also notice that the proceedings initiated u/s.148 assessing the same income in the hands of Assessee’s HUF is in appeal before the CIT(A) -4. In the impugned order under appeal here, the CIT(A) has decided that the income should be assessed in the hands of the assessee’s HUF merely based on the fact that the same income is also assessed in HUF and is subjudice. The CIT(A) has not gone into the merits of the case to come to the conclusions that the income should be assessed in the hands of the HUF. We therefore remand the case back to CIT(A) to consider the materials on record and decide the issue accordingly after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.