The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Ward v. M/S.p.r.venketarama Raja (Huf

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 21.12.2017 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mr.Justice K.RAVICHANDRABAABU The Commissioner of Income Tax,Ward-5, Virudhunagar. ...Appellant Vs M/s.P.R.Venketarama Raja (HUF) ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order dated 30.5.2017 made in ITA.No.3179/Mds/2016on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A'Bench for the assessment year 2011-12. Against the order of the commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Madurai, dated 29.03.2016 made in PANNo.AAAHV5302A, and Assessment Year 2011-12, against the order ofthe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Virudunagar,dated 26.02.2014, made in PAN/GIR No. /2011 – 2012. For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J Heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counselfor the Revenue. 2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench inITA.No.3179/Mds/2016 dated 30.5.2017 for the assessment year2011-12, raising the following substantial questions of law :"i. Whether the Income Tax AppellateTribunal was right in law in holding thatthe benefit of exemption under Section54F/54 of the Income Tax Act cannot bedenied even though the investment inpurchase/construction of new asset was notmade in the name of the assessee - HUF, butin the name of the Karta in his individualcapacity ? and ii. Whether the Income Tax AppellateTribunal is correct in not considering thefact that the investment in purchase of newasset was not made within one year beforethe date of transfer of original assets (i.e23.9.2010) as stipulated in the provisionsof Section 54F/54 since the impugnedinvestment was made on 12.12.2008 only andtherefore, was not eligible for exemptionunder Section 54F/54 ?"3. With regard to the first question, the objection raisedby the Revenue is that the property was sold by the HUF when theproperty was purchased in the name of the individual. 4. This aspect of the matter has been elaboratelyconsidered by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and afinding has been recorded to the effect that it is seen that thefunds for the purchase of new property has come from the bankaccount of the assessee in the capacity of HUF and not from hisindividual capacity. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)further noted that even though the purchase deed of the propertyas well as the agreement for construction of the new residentialproperty with M/s.Ramcons show the name of Mr.P.R.VenketaramaRaja, the legal position is that the assessee can enter into thepurchase and sale of any property of the HUF in the capacity asthe Kartha of the HUF. This finding has been further elaboratedby the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in paragraph 13.2 ofthe order. 5. Thus, we find, on facts, that the Tribunal was justifiedin dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue on the firstquestion. Hence, we find that the first substantial question oflaw does not arise for consideration in this appeal, as theissue entirely revolves around the facts. 6. With regard to the second question, we find that theTribunal, after considering the entire matter, remanded thematter to the Assessing Officer to be decided afresh on merits.The finding rendered by the Tribunal for justifying the order ofremand is found to be just and proper. Thus, we find that thesecond substantial question of law also does not arise forconsideration. 7. Accordingly, the above tax case appeal is dismissed. 8. It is well open to the Assessing Officer to take intoconsideration of the facts on the issue remanded to him. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax,(Appeals-3)madurai. 6. With regard to the second question, we find that theTribunal, after considering the entire matter, remanded thematter to the Assessing Officer to be decided afresh on merits.The finding rendered by the Tribunal for justifying the order ofremand is found to be just and proper. Thus, we find that thesecond substantial question of law also does not arise forconsideration. 7. Accordingly, the above tax case appeal is dismissed. 8. It is well open to the Assessing Officer to take intoconsideration of the facts on the issue remanded to him. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax,(Appeals-3)madurai. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax ciricle – I,Virudunagar. +1cc to Mr.M.SWAMINATHAN, Advocate, S.R.No. 92311/17TCA.No.720 of 2017BR(CO)TR(17/01/2018)