Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Ram Mohan Rai (Huf)
1992 Latest Caselaw 477 Del

JUDGMENT

The Court

1. Heard. The petitioner seeks reference of the following question :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal has not erred in law in holding that :

The capital gain on the acquisition of the property is taxable in the hands of the individual members of HUF and not in the hand of the undivided assessed HUF as the partition of the HUF had taken place on 6th March, 1962 ?

2. The award of compensation having been announced to the parties only on 16th March, 1962, it would be wrong to hold that the relevant date was the date of the award, i.e., 19th February, 1962 whereas the title of the property would be deemed to have vested in the Government on the date when the award was made, i.e., 19th February, 1962 which is a 'transfer' within the meaning of s. 45 of the IT Act, 1961, and hence the date of pronouncement of the award i.e., 16th March, 1962 being subsequent event would be of no consequence as per decision contained in CIT vs. Purshottambhai Maganbhai Hatheesing (HUF) (1985) 156 ITR 150 (Guj) and, therefore, the capital gain is correctly assessable in the hands of the assessed (HUF) ?"

3. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Harish Chandra vs. Dy. Land Acquisition Officer and State of Punjab vs. Qaisar Jehan Begum and also the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Ramadhar (1985) 156 ITR 755 (Del) the answer to the question proposed has become academic.

4. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.