By Jagdish D. Shah | Jagdish T. Punjabi
Chartered Accountants
12.
Pankil Garg vs. PCIT ITAT Chandigarh; Members: Sanjay Garg (JM)
and Ms Annapurna Gupta (AM) ITA No.: 773/Chd./2018 A.Y.: 2011-12 Date of order: 3rd August, 2019; Counsel for Assessee / Revenue: K.R. Chhabra
/ G.S. Phani Kishore
Section 56(2)(vii) – The amount received by
the assessee from the HUF, being its member, is a capital receipt in his hands
and is not exigible to income tax
If the decisions passed by the higher
authorities are not followed by the lower authorities, there will be chaos
resulting in never-ending litigation and multiplication of cases
FACTS
For the assessment year under consideration,
the AO completed the assessment of total income of the assessee u/s 143(3) of
the Act by accepting returned income of Rs. 14,32,982. Subsequently, the AO
issued a notice u/s 147 on the ground that the assessee has received a gift of
Rs. 5,90,000 from his HUF and since the amount of gift was in excess of Rs.
50,000, the same was taxable u/s 56(2)(vii) of the Act.
In the course of reassessment proceedings,
the assessee contended that the amount received by him from his HUF was not
taxable and relied upon the decision of the Rajkot Bench of the Tribunal in Vineetkumar
Raghavjibhai Bhalodia vs. ITO [(2011) 46 SOT 97 (Rajkot)] which was
followed by the Hyderabad Bench (SMC) of the Tribunal in Biravel I.
Bhaskar vs. ITO [ITA No. 398/Hyd./2015; A.Y. 2008-09; order dated 17th
June, 2015] wherein it has been held that HUF being a group of
relatives, a gift by it to an individual is nothing but a gift from a group of
relatives; and further, as per the exclusions provided in clause 56(2)(vii) of
the Act, a gift from a relative is not exigible to taxation; hence, the gift
received by the assessee from the HUF is not taxable. The AO accepted the
contention of the assessee and accepted the returned income in an order passed
u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act.
Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT, invoking
jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, set aside the AO’s order and held that the HUF
does not fall in the definition of relative in case of an individual as provided
in Explanation to clause (vii) to section 56(2) as substituted by the Finance
Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1st October, 2009. Though
the definition of a ‘relative’ in case of an HUF has been extended to include
any member of the HUF, yet, in the said extended definition, the converse case
is not included. In the case of an individual, the HUF has not been mentioned
in the list of relatives.
The PCIT, thus, formed a view that though a
gift from a member to the HUF was not exigible to taxation as per the
provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, a gift by the HUF to a member
exceeding a sum of Rs. 50,000 was taxable.
The PCIT also held that the decisions of the
Rajkot and the Hyderabad Benches of the Tribunal relied upon by the assessee were
not in consonance with the statutory provisions of sections 56(2)(vii) and
10(2) of the Act and, thus, the AO had made a mistake in not taking recourse to
the clear and unambiguous provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act and in
unduly placing reliance on judicial decisions which were not in accordance with
the provisions of law.
The order passed by the AO was held by the
PCIT to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and was set aside. The AO was directed to make assessment afresh.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal
to the Tribunal.
HELD
The Tribunal noted that the AO had duly
applied his mind to the issue and followed the decisions of the co-ordinate
Benches of the Tribunal; hence, the order of the AO cannot be held to be
erroneous and, therefore, the PCIT wrongly exercised jurisdiction u/s 263 of
the Act and the same cannot be held to be justified and is liable to be set
aside on this score alone.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT neither had
any power nor any justification to say that the AO should not have placed
reliance on the judicial decisions of the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that if
such a course is allowed to subsist, then there will be no certainty and
finality to the litigation. If the decisions passed by the higher authorities
are not followed by the lower authorities, there will be chaos resulting in
never-ending litigation and multiplication of cases. The Tribunal held that the
impugned order of the PCIT is not sustainable as per law.
On merits, the Tribunal, after discussing
the concept of HUF and the provisions of sections 56(2)(vii) and 10(2), held
that any amount received by a member of the HUF, even out of the capital or
estate of the HUF cannot be said to be income of the member exigible to
taxation. Since a member has a pre-existing right in the property of the HUF,
it cannot be said to be a gift without consideration by the HUF or by other
members of the HUF to the recipient member. The Tribunal observed that
provisions of section 56(2)(vii) are not attracted when an individual member
receives any sum either during the subsistence of the HUF for his needs or on
partition of the HUF in lieu of his share in the joint family property.
However, the converse is not true, that is, in case an individual member throws
his self-acquired property into the common pool of an HUF. The HUF or its
members do not have any pre-existing right in the self-acquired property of a
member. If an individual member throws his own / self-acquired property in the
common pool, it will be an income of the HUF; however, the same will be exempt
from taxation as the individual members of an HUF have been included in the
meaning of relative as provided in the Explanation to section 56(2)(vii) of the
Act. It is because of this salient feature of the HUF that in case of an
individual the HUF has not been included in the definition of relative in
Explanation to section 56(2)(vii), whereas in the case of an HUF, members of
the HUF find mention in the definition of relative for the purpose of the said
section.
In view of the above discussion, the amount
received by the assessee from the HUF, being its member, is a capital receipt
in his hands and is not exigible to income tax.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the
assessee.
