Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH ‘C’, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI SANJAY ARORA & SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR
आदेश /O R D E R
Per Sanjay Arora, AM:
This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Coimbatore (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 19.10.2012, dismissing the assessee’s appeal contesting its assessment u/s. 144 r/w s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 30.12.2011 for assessment year (AY) 2008-09.
2 /Mds/2013 (AY 2008-09) R.Karthikeyan v. ITO 2. Assessment in the instant case stands made to bring to tax the capital gains arising to assessee-HUF on the sale of its ancestral property which had earlier (vide order u/s. 143(3) dated 22.12.2010) been assessed in the (individual) hands of the Karta, Shri N.V.Ramesh Babu, who expired on 03.07.2011, by initiating reassessment proceedings. The basis of the same was the mention in the sale deed, as well as the admission by the Karta in his individual assessment proceedings (vide letter filed on 20.12.2010), of the subject property as belonging to HUF, so that the capital gains are to be taxed in his HUF capacity. No return being furnished in response to the notice u/s. 148 dated 03.01.2011, nor any reply to the notice u/s. 142(1) (dated 26.06.2011), the Assessing Officer (AO) finalized the assessment by adopting, instead of the stated sale consideration of �. 48 lacs, the guideline value of �. 60.75 lacs on the date of sale (22.02.2008), i.e., the same value as adopted earlier in computing the long term capital gains (LTCG) in the hands of the individual. No improvement in its case being made in appeal, the assessment stood confirmed as such, so that the assessee is in second appeal, raising several grounds toward different objections.
We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. Qua the objection as to the assessment order bearing the assessee’s GIR number (and not Permanent Account Number (PAN)), as rightly stated by the ld. CIT(A), would not make the assessment order invalid (refer para 6 of the impugned order). It is in fact the assessee who is the responsible for the same inasmuch as it did not file any return nor reply, and which ought to bear the PAN (s. 139A(5)). In fact, the assessee had no PAN, and applied therefor only at the time of filing the appeal before the first appellate authority, causing a delay therein by 33 days, and which, for that reason, stood condoned by the ld. CIT(A) (refer para 4 of the impugned order). This also explains as to why the PAN of the individual was mentioned in the sale deed, resulting in the assessment in the first instance being made in the hands of the individual. The assessment in fact, though framed on 3 /Mds/2013 (AY 2008-09) R.Karthikeyan v. ITO protective basis, gets, as it appears, converted into a substantive assessment as the first appellate authority in the case of the individual has deleted the addition holding that the impugned income could be assessed only in the hands of the HUF (vide order in Appeal No. 265/2010-11 dated 21.02.2012 / Paper-book pages 23-25). Further, we say ‘as it appears’, as there is nothing to show that the said appeal – in the case of the individual, stands challenged by the Revenue, implying its attaining finality. The claim for deduction u/s. 54F, which was made before the ld. CIT(A), stands also not incorrectly disallowed as the plot was purchased (for �. 12 lacs) by the individual (refer para 9 of the impugned order). True, the notice u/s .142(1) dated 29.6.2011, as well as the show cause notice dated 18.10.2011, bear the PAN of the individual (AFQPR 6579E) (PB pages 31-32, 33-34). However, it is clear there-from that the same are issued only in the case of the assessee-HUF, as the captioned subject would show, with the notice dated 18.10.2011 also being referred to the earlier notice dated 29.06.2011. Why, the assessee’s son, Shri R.Karthikeyan, appeared in response to notice dated 18.10.2011, stating (vide letter dated 04.11.2011) that his father had since expired, and inasmuch as it was he who was looking after the affairs of and on behalf of the family, he is unable to furnish any material in assessment. The notices were thus, as clearly mentioned thereon, were in the case of HUF and, further, understood as such. Reference in this context may be made to the decision in the case of CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh [1996] 219 ITR 737 (SC). It was in fact on account of this reason that the impugned assessment was framed u/s. 144 r/w s. 147, even as the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 144 remains unassailed. The assessee’s case is without any merit. With regard to the claim for deduction u/s. 54F, however, in view of the submissions made before us, claiming that the assessee-HUF satisfies the conditions of the provision, the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A), so as to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate its case. We decide accordingly.