The Tax PublishersITA No. 2895/Del/2017
2019 TaxPub(DT) 0387 (Del-Trib)INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 143
Where HUF filed its return declaring income under IDS then the income being compulsory acquisition of land awarding income thereagainst would be sufficient to creation of HUF and as such taxes were paid, the interest income would be assessed in the status of HUF and not as inidividual.
|
Assessment - Status - HUF or Individual income - HUF paid taxes even on disputed interest income in its heands--No return earlier filed in HUF status
It was claimed that since land was ancestral which was acquired by the assessee as Karta of the HUF namely Shri S K T & Others (HUF) after the death of his father in 1954. The land belonged to the assessee's HUF, and therefore, the compensation and interest received on acquisition of land by the Govt. belonged to the assessee's HUF. The issue was adjudicated by the Jt. Commissioner during the course of assessment under section 144A by passing the order dated 23-2-2015 and held that assessing officer was directed to assess the benefits derived from the acquisition of said ancestral land in the hands of Shri S K T (Individual), and not in the hands of Shri S K T and others (HUF), as offered. Commissioner (Appeals), who vide his impugned order had dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that that joint Hindu Property does not devolve on HUF by succession as is being sought to be made out on behalf of the appellant and finally held that the claim of the assessee regarding creation of subsistence of the S K, HUF, was not maintainable and the same was rejected. ITAT deleted the addition in the hands of the individual. Held: No individual/Karta is authorized to appropriate and show the income of the HUF in his hands, debarring the other coparceners of their right claim to the share of HUF properties/assets/income. The factual reason to disallow the claim of the HUF was that no return was filed and no such tax had been paid by the HUF. The issue gets settled by the payment of taxes by the HUF through the declaration made before the Pr. CIT under IDS, which had been accepted, as all taxes have been paid. Therefore, in such circumstances, and facts of the case since the HUF had already paid tax due along with interest, etc., and correct share had been declared at Rs. 27,79,279 as against lesser amount of Rs. 22,50,413 taken by both the authorities below, the AO was directed to delete the addition so made.
Followed:ITAT, SMC Bench dated 18-10-2017 and Ashwani Kumar Tyagi v. ITO [ITA No. 2745/Del/2017] : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4617 (Del-Trib) (Assessment Year 2012-13).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2012-13
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|