IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
\nDIVISION BENCH, \u2018B\u2019 , CHANDIGARH<\/p>\n
BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
\nMs . ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER<\/p>\n
.\/ ITA No. 773\/CHD\/2018
\n \/ Assessment Year : 2011-12
\nShri Pankil Garg,
\nAggarwal Bhawan,
\nShahbad (M)<\/p>\n
The Pr. CIT,
\nKarnal<\/p>\n
PAN No. AFOPG2875E
\nAppellant \/Respondent
\nAssessee by : Shri K.R. Chhabra, Advocate
\n Revenue by : Sh. G.S. Phani Kishore, CIT DR<\/p>\n
Date of Hearing : 15.07.2019
\nDate of Pronouncement : 17.07.2019
\nOrder
\nPer Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
\nThe present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the
\norder dated 19.3.2018 of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal
\n[hereinafter referred to as\u2019 PCIT\u2019] against the revision order passed u\/s
\n263 of the Act , whereby, the Ld. PCIT has set aside the assessment
\norder passed by the Assessing Officer wi th a direct ion to make
\nassessment afresh u\/s 143(3) read wi th sect ion 147 of the Income Tax
\nAct , 1961 (in shor t ‘ the Act ‘).
\nITA No. 773-C-2018
\nSh. Pankil Garg, Shahbad
\n2
\n2. The appeal of the assessee is barred by limi tat ion period of 06
\ndays. A separate appl icat ion for Condonat ion of Delay has been moved
\nby the assessee pleading that the counsel for the assessee due to medical
\nreasons could not fi le the appeal wi thin the stipulated per iod. The
\naverments made in the applicat ion have been corroborated wi th the
\naffidavi t of the counsel for the assessee.
\nConsidering the grounds mentioned in the appl icat ion for
\nCondonat ion of Delay which are duly supported wi th the affidavi t and
\nalso consider ing the shortness of the delay period of only 06 days, the
\ndelay in fil ing the present appeal is hereby condoned.
\n3. Brief facts relat ing to the issue are that the assessee fi led his
\nreturn of income on 9.3.2012 declaring an income of Rs. 14,32,982\/-.
\nThe assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated
\n13.3.2014 u\/s 143(3) of the Act accepting the returned income.
\nSubsequent ly, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment u\/s 147
\nread wi th sect ion 148 of the Act on the ground that the assessee during
\nthe year under considerat ion had received a gi ft of Rs. 5,90,000\/- from
\nhis \u2018Hindu Undivided Family\u2019 (\u2018HUF\u2019). The Assessing Officer was of
\nthe view that since the amount of said gift was more than Rs. 50,000\/-,
\nhence, the same was exigible to tax as \u2018income from other sources\u2019 u\/s
\n56(2)(vi i) of the I.T. Act. However, the assessee in the reopened
\nassessment proceedings rel ied upon the decision of the Coordinate
\nITA No. 773-C-2018
\nSh. Pankil Garg, Shahbad
\n3
\nRajkot Bench of the Tribunal order dated 17.5.2011, in the case of
\n\u2018Vineetkumar Raghavjibhai Bhalodia vs ITO\u2019 passed in ITA No.
\n583\/Rjt \/2007 for assessment year 2005-06, which has been further
\nfol lowed by the Hyderabad Bench (SMC) of the Tribunal , order dated
\n17.6.2015 in \u2018Mr.Biravel l i Bhaskar vs ITO\u2019 ITA No. 398\/Hyd\/2015
\nfor A.Y. 2008-09, wherein, it has been held that ‘HUF’ being a group of
\nrelat ives, hence, the gi ft by the \u2018 ‘HUF’\u2019 to an individual is nothing but a
\ngi ft from group of relat ives and further as per the exclusion clause
\n56(2)(vi i) of the Act , a gift from relat ive is not exigible to taxat ion,
\nhence, the gift received by the assessee from the \u2018HUF\u2019 was not taxable.
\nThe Assessing Officer accepted the content ions raised by the assessee
\nand accordingly assessed the income of the assessee at the returned
\nincome.
\nHowever, subsequently, the Ld. PCIT invoking his jurisdict ion u\/s
\n263 of the Act , set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer and
\nheld that the ‘HUF’ does not fal l in the defini t ion of relat ive in case of
\nan \u2018individual\u2019 as provided in Explanation to clause (vi i) to section
\n56(2) as subst i tuted by Finance Act, 2012 wi th retrospect ive effect from
\n1.10.2009. That though, the defini t ion of a relat ive in case of a ‘HUF’
\nhas been extended to include any member of the ‘HUF’ , yet, in the said
\nextended defini t ion, the converse case is not included that is to say in
\nthe case of individual , the ‘HUF’ has not been ment ioned in the list of
\nrelat ives. Ld. PCIT, thus, formed a view that though a gift from a
\nITA No. 773-C-2018
\nSh. Pankil Garg, Shahbad
\n4
\nmember thereof to the ‘HUF’ was not exigible to taxat ion as per the
\nprovisions of sect ion 56(2)(vi i ) of the Act, however, a gift by the ‘HUF’
\nto a member exceeding a sum of Rs. 50,000\/- was taxable. She also
\nrejected the content ion of the assessee that the aforesaid gi ft amount
\nwas received by the assessee from the income of the ‘HUF’ and thus
\nwas exempt from taxat ion u\/s 10(2) of the Act , holding that to claim
\nexempt ion u\/s 10(2) of the Act , the member ‘HUF’ must receive any
\namount for a considerat ion out of the income of the ‘HUF’. That since
\nthe assessee had received the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,90,000\/- wi thout
\nconsideration, hence, the same was not tax exempt. She also held that
\nthe decision of the Coordinate Rajkot Bench of the Tribunal in the case
\nof \u2018Vineetkumar Raghavj ibhai Bhalodia vs ITO\u2019 (supra) and Hyderabad
\nBench in \u2018Mr.Bi ravell i Bhaskar vs ITO\u2019 (supra) were not in consonance
\nwi th the statutory provisions of sect ion 56(2)(vi i) and sect ion 10(2) of
\nthe I.T. Act and, thus, the Assessing Officer had made a mistake in not
\ntaking recourse to the clear and unambiguous provisions of sect ion
\n56(2)(vi i) of the Act and in unduly placing rel iance on the judicial
\ndecisions which were not in accordance wi th the provisions of law. She,
\ntherefore, held that the order passed by the assessing officer was
\nerroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. She, accordingly,
\nset aside the order of the Assessing Officer and directed the Assessing
\nOfficer to make assessment afresh.
\nITA No. 773-C-2018
\nSh. Pankil Garg, Shahbad
\n5
\n4. Being aggrieved by the above order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee
\nhas come in appeal before us.
\n5. We have heard the rival content ions and have also gone through
\nthe record. In this case, or iginal ly, the assessment was framed u\/s
\n143(3) of the Act accepting the returned income. The assessment was
\nreopened u\/s 147 of the Act only to examine the issue as to the
\ntaxabi l i ty of the amount of gi ft received by the assessee from his ‘HUF’ .
\nThe issue was examined by the Assessing Officer and he accepted the
\nreturned income holding that the gift received from ‘HUF’ was not
\nexigible to tax by relying upon the decisions of the Coordinate Rajkot
\nBench of the Tribunal in the case of Vineetkumar Raghavjibhai Bhalodia
\nvs ITO\u2019 (supra) and Hyderabad Bench of the Tr ibunal in \u2018Mr.Biravel l i
\nBhaskar vs ITO\u2019 (supra).
\nThe decisions of the higher judicial authori t ies were binding upon the
\nAssessing Officer and the Assessing Officer accordingly fol lowed the
\nsame. In view of this, the Assessing Officer took a possible view in the
\nl ight of the direct judicial decisions on the issue. Under the
\ncircumstances, the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be said to be
\nerroneous. The Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court in the case of \u2018Malabar
\nIndustries Co. Ltd. vs CIT\u2019 (2000) 243 ITR 83 has held that for
\nexercise of jurisdict ion by the Commissioner u\/s 263 of the Act, prerequisi
\nte condi tion is that the order of the Income Tax officer is
\nerroneous in so far as i t is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus,
\nITA No. 773-C-2018
\nSh. Pankil Garg, Shahbad
\n6
\nthe Commissioner has to be sat isfied i f the twin condi t ions namely (i)
\nthe order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous
\nand; ( ii ) i t is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Hon\u2019ble
\nSupreme Court has further held that i f one out of the aforesaid twin
\ncondi t ions is absent, the recourse cannot be had to sect ion 263(1) of the
\nAct by the Commissioner. As observed above, since the Assessing
\nOfficer had duly appl ied his mind to the issue and fol lowed the
\ndecisions of the higher judicial authorit ies i .e. Coordinate Benches of
\nthe Tr ibunal (supra), hence, in the l ight of the decision of the Hon\u2019ble
\nSupreme Court in the case of \u2018Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. vs CIT\u2019
\n(supra), the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be
\nerroneous and, therefore, the Ld. PCIT wrongly exercised jurisdict ion
\nu\/s 263 of the Act and the same cannot be held to be just i fied. The order
\nof the Ld. PCIT is l iable to be set aside on this score alone.
\n6. We would l ike to further add that the Ld. PCIT whi le passing the
\nimpugned order, held that the decisions of the Coordinate Rajkot and
\nHyderabad Benches of the Tribunal (supra) were not correct decisions
\nwhich, in our view, tantamount to judicial indiscipl ine. When there
\nwere direct decisions of the higher cour ts avai lable wi th the assessee
\nwhich were duly ci ted before the Ld. PCIT and also which were duly
\ndiscussed in the impugned order of the Assessing Officer, the Ld. PCIT
\nnei ther had any power nor any justi ficat ion to say that the Assessing
\nITA No. 773-C-2018
\nSh. Pankil Garg, Shahbad
\n7
\nOfficer should not have placed rel iance on the said judicial decisions. If
\nsuch a course is al lowed to subsist , then there wi l l be no certainty and
\nfinal ity to the l i t igat ion. I f the decisions passed by the higher
\nauthori t ies are not fol lowed by the lower authori ties, there wi l l be chaos
\nresul t ing into never ending l it igat ion and mul t ipl icat ion of the cases. In
\nview of the above discussion, the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT is non
\nsustainable as per law.
\n7. Now coming to the observat ions made by the Ld. PCIT on the
\nmeri ts of the case. The assessee in this case has taken a plea that the
\naforesaid gift has been received by the assessee out of the income of the
\n‘HUF’ and that the same was exempt u\/s 10(2) of the I.T. Act . There is a
\ndirect decision of the Coordinate Rajkot and Hyderabad Benches of the
\nTribunal (supra) on this issue, holding that for get ting any exempt ion
\nu\/s 10(2) of the Act , the individual assessee must sat isfy two condi t ions,
\nfirst ly, he is a member of the ‘HUF’ and, secondly, he receives a sum
\nout of the income of the such ‘HUF’, may be of ear lier years. The Ld.
\nPCIT in the impugned order passed u\/s 263 of the Act , however, held
\nthat the word \u2018paid out \u2019 means that sum must be paid out either in return
\nof \u2018goods\u2019 or \u2018services\u2019 or that the same must be for some
\nconsideration. Such an interpretation by the Ld. PCIT of sect ion 10(2)
\nof the Act is whol ly misconceived. There is no rebuttal or denial ei ther
\nin the order of the Assessing Officer or in the order of the Ld. PCIT in
\nITA No. 773-C-2018
\nSh. Pankil Garg, Shahbad
\n8
\nrespect of the content ion of the assessee that amount in quest ion was
\nreceived out of the income of the ‘HUF’. In view of this, the assessee,
\notherwise, is ent i t led to exempt ion u\/s 10(2) of the Act .
\n8. Now coming to the findings of the Ld. PCIT that as per the
\nprovisions of section 56 (2) (vi i) of the Act , though the members of the
\n‘HUF’ are to be taken relat ives of the ‘HUF’ for the purpose of the said
\nsect ion, however, the converse is not true that is to say that ‘HUF’ is
\nnot a relat ive of the individual member as per meaning of relat ive given
\nin the case i f individual under explanat ion to sect ion 56(2)(vi i) of the
\nAct .
\nBefore further del iberat ing on this quest ion, we deem it necessary to
\nfirst discuss as to what const i tute ‘HUF’ (Hindu Undivided Fami ly). The
\n‘HUF’ has been included within the meaning of word \u2018person\u2019 in
\nsect ion 2(31) of the Income Tax Act , 1961 as a separate taxable ent ity
\nbut ‘HUF’ has not been defined in the Income Tax Act , whereby, i t
\nmeans that the expression ‘HUF’ in the Act is used in the sense in which
\na \u2018Hindu Joint Family\u2019 or a \u2018Hindu Undivided Fami ly\u2019 ( ‘HUF’) is
\nunderstood in the personal laws of Hindus. A Hindu joint or undivided
\nfami ly is not created for any business purposes, rather, it is a normal
\ncondi t ion of Hindu society and prevalent throughout India based on the
\nsocial necessi ty. Subject to the subsequent amendments in Hindu
\nSuccession Act , as per the Hindu Law and Usage, a \u2018Hindu Joint Fami ly\u2019
\nITA No. 773-C-2018
\nSh. Pankil Garg, Shahbad
\n9
\nconsists of male members descended lineally from a common male
\nancestor, together wi th their mothers, wives or widows and unmarr ied
\ndaughters bound together by the fundamental principle of \u2018sapindaship\u2019
\nor family relat ionship which is the essence and distinguishing feature of
\nthe inst i tut ion. I t is purely a creat ion of law and cannot be created by
\nan act of part ies except in the case of adopt ion or a marr iage, only when
\na stranger can become a ‘HUF’ member. An undivided fami ly is a normal
\ncondi t ion of a Hindu society which is ordinari ly joint not only in estate
\nbut also in food and worship. The cord that knits of the fami ly together
\nis not property but relationship. There is no presumption that a fami ly
\nis joint because i t is possessed of joint property. If the persons in the
\nfami ly l ive together and are joint in food and worship, irrespective of
\nthe fact that there is joint proper ty of the fami ly, i t const i tutes ‘HUF’ . It
\nis a fluctuating body, i ts size increases with birth of a member in the
\nfami ly and decreases on death of a member in the fami ly. Females go
\nand come into the ‘HUF’ on marriage. A \u2018coparcenary\u2019 is a narrower
\nbody than a joint fami ly and consists of only persons who take by birth
\nan interest in the joint fami ly property and can enforce a part i t ion
\nwhenever they l ike. Though, members of ‘HUF’ are ent i t led to be
\nmaintained out of the joint fami ly funds, however, the members of the
\nnarrower body within ‘HUF’ cal led \u2018Coparcenary\u2019 have birth rights in
\nthe joint fami ly property. Hindu Law does not recognize an ‘HUF’ as an
\nent ity separate from the members of the family. In an ‘HUF’, the
\nITA No. 773-C-2018
\nSh. Pankil Garg, Shahbad
\n10
\nmembers col lect ively own i t. The interest and share of the members in
\nthe estate of the fami ly is undivided and undetermined. Al l the members
\ncol lect ively own and enjoy the property wi thout determinat ion of their
\nshares unt i l the same is part i t ioned. There is communi ty of interest and
\nuni ty of possession between al l the members and upon the death of any
\nof them, the others take by survivorship and not by succession. An
\n\u2018HUF\u2019 though treated as a separate ent i ty for taxat ion purposes, i t
\ndi ffers in several respects from a \u2018corporat ion\u2019 and from a \u2018partnership
\nfirm\u2019 as the later ent i t ies can be formed by an act of part ies and
\nstrangers can be their members, however, ‘HUF’ is a creat ion of law and
\nthe members having natural relat ionship and a stranger cannot become
\ni ts member except by adopt ion or marriage. Apart from that , in a
\npartnership fi rm, each of the members of the partnership firm has a
\ndefini te and determined share in capi tal as well as in the profi ts of the
\nfirm. A member of the firm subject to the terms of the agreement \/
\npartnership deed may deposi t or wi thdraw his capi tal but that is not so
\nin the case of a ‘HUF’ . Nei ther there is any defini te share of any of the
\nmembers in the estate of the \u2018HUF\u2019 nor any member is ent i t led to any
\nshare in the profi ts if the ‘HUF\u2019 is engaged in any business. The income
\nof the ‘HUF\u2019 goes to the common ki t ty. The property and the income of
\nthe ‘HUF\u2019 is managed by \u2018Kar ta\u2019 or Manager of the ‘HUF’ who general ly
\nis a senior most male member of the fami ly. The powers of the \u2018Karta\u2019
\nof management to the propert ies of the \u2018HUF\u2019 are wide and he is not
\nITA No. 773-C-2018
\nSh. Pankil Garg, Shahbad
\n11
\nl iable to give day to day accounts of the propert ies to the members of
\nthe ‘HUF\u2019. Since the property of the ‘HUF’ does not belong solely to an
\nindividual member and the shares of the members are not determined,
\nhence, the ‘HUF’ is made a taxable ent i ty in itself. As per the provisions
\nof sect ion 10(2) of the I.T. Act , any sum received by an individual , as a
\nmember of ‘HUF’, which has been paid out of the income of the family
\nor out of the income of the estate of the fami ly is not exigible to
\ntaxat ion. The said exempt ion has been given on the pat tern of a
\npartnership firm to avoid double taxation of the same amount . In the
\ncase of partnership fi rm, when the partnership firm has been assessed to
\nincome tax separately, then, the share of profi t received by an individual
\nperson is not taxable. I f a member does not opt to receive his share out
\nof the profi ts of the firm and opts that the same be added towards his
\ncapital in the firm, even then, when the said par tner either on
\ndissolut ion of the firm or otherwise receives back his capi tal, the said
\ncapital is not taxable as an income of the partner, rather, the same is
\ntaken as a capital receipt . However, in the case of ‘HUF’ , or to say in the
\nstrict sense in case of \u2018coparcenary\u2019, the individual members receive
\ntheir share on part i t ion. However, dur ing the subsist ing coparcenary or
\nto say broadly \u2018HUF’, no member is ent i t led to receive any defini te
\nshare out of the income of the ‘HUF’ . It is left to the prudence and
\nwisdom of the manager who has to manage the affai rs of the ‘HUF’, he
\nmay spend the money or property of the \u2018HUF\u2019 in the case of a need of a
\nITA No. 773-C-2018
\nSh. Pankil Garg, Shahbad
\n12
\nmember, such as on the marriage of a unmarried female member or in
\ncase of certain treatment of any disease of the member or in case of
\neducat ional needs of any chi ldren in the ‘HUF’. The amount spent may
\nbe more than that the member may have gotten on the part i t ion of the
\n‘HUF’. The Kar ta of the ‘HUF’, even can gi ft of the ‘HUF’ property for
\npious purpose and even he can contract a debt for the legal necessity and
\nfor fami ly purposes and can bind the other members to the extent of
\ntheir interest in the fami ly property.
\nIn the above scenario, the property of the ‘HUF’ nei ther cannot be said
\nto belong to a third person nor can be said to be in \u2018corporate enti ty\u2019,
\nrather, the same is the property of the members of the fami ly. It is
\nbecause that the share of each of the individual member in the property
\nor income of the \u2018HUF\u2019 is not determinate, hence, the family, as such,
\nis treated as separate ent i ty for taxation purposes. ‘HUF’ otherwise is
\nnot recognized as a separate jur ist ic person dist inct from the members
\nwho const i tute i t . A member of the \u2018HUF\u2019 has a pre-existing r ight in the
\nfami ly propert ies. A Coparcener has a pre-exist ing r ight and interest in
\nthe property and can demand part i t ion also, however, the other members
\nof the ‘HUF’ have right to be maintain out of the ‘HUF’ proper ty. On
\ndivision, the share in the estate \/ capi tal of the ‘HUF’ cannot be treated
\nas income of the recipient, rather, the same wi l l be a capi tal receipt in
\nhis hands. However, in the case of a partnership firm, if a member
\nreceives an amount which is more than his share in the capi tal or in the
\nITA No. 773-C-2018
\nSh. Pankil Garg, Shahbad
\n13
\nprofi ts of the firm, the amount received in excess of the share can be
\ntreated as a gift by the fi rm or by other partners to that individual which
\nwi ll be exigible to income tax. However, in the case of an ‘HUF’ , since
\nthere is not any determined share of any member in the fami ly property,
\nany amount received by a member of a ‘HUF’ from proper ty of ‘HUF’
\ncannot be said to be more than his share in the property, rather, the
\nsame is given to him in the normal course of management of family
\naffai rs as is deemed fi t or prudent by manager \/ \u2018karta\u2019 of the ‘HUF’ and
\ni t cannot be said that such an amount received by a member of ‘HUF’ is
\nthe income of the said member. I t is received out of the common ki t ty in
\nwhich such a member has also a joint interest along wi th other fami ly
\nmembers. Al l the ancestral proper ty belong to the fami ly managed by
\nthe head of the fami ly and once income of the fami ly is assessed or
\nsubjected to tax as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act , then, the
\ndistribut ion \/ payment out of the joint fami ly property to any member of
\nthe fami ly cannot be said to be income of such a member. The
\njust ificat ion of the payment or the quantum of amount paid to any
\nmember by the \u2018Karta\u2019 \/ manager of the \u2018HUF\u2019 is though subject to
\nchallenge by other members of the HUF , if found to be not genuine or
\nnot for fami ly good, however, a third person cannot question i t. Family
\nincome flows into a common pool from which resources are drawn to
\nmeet needs of al l the members which are regulated by the head of the
\nfami ly. In such circumstances, any amount received by a member of the
\nITA No. 773-C-2018
\nSh. Pankil Garg, Shahbad
\n14
\n‘HUF’, even out of the capi tal or estate of the ‘HUF’ cannot be said to
\nbe income of the member exigible to taxation. Since such a member
\nhimsel f has a pre-existing right in the property of the ‘HUF’ , hence, i t
\ncannot be said to be a gi ft without consideration by the ‘HUF’ or by the
\nother members of the ‘HUF’ to that recipient member. In such
\ncircumstances, the provisions of sect ion 56(2) (vi i) are not at tracted in
\ncase an individual member receives any sum ei ther during the
\nsubsistence of the ‘HUF’ for his needs or on par ti t ion of the ‘HUF’ in
\nl ieu of his share in the joint fami ly property.
\nHowever, the converse is not true i.e. to say in case an individual
\nmember throws his self-acquired property into common pool of ‘HUF’.
\nThe ‘HUF’ or other members of the ‘HUF’ do not have any pre-exist ing
\nright in the sel f-acqui red property of a member. If such an individual
\nmember throws his own\/sel f-earned or self-acqui red property in common
\npool , i t wi ll be an income of the ‘HUF’, however, the same wi l l be
\nexempt from taxat ion as the individual members of an ‘HUF’ have been
\nincluded in the meaning of \u2018relat ive\u2019 as provided in the explanat ion to
\nsect ion 56(2)(vi i) of the Act . It is because of this sal ient feature of the
\nHUF that in case of individual, the HUF has not been included in the
\ndefini t ion of relat ive in explanat ion to sect ion 56(2) (vi i ) as i t was not
\nso requi red whereas in case of HUF, members of the HUF find ment ion
\nin the defini t ion of \u2018relat ive\u2019 for the purpose of the said sect ion.
\nITA No. 773-C-2018
\nSh. Pankil Garg, Shahbad
\n15
\nIn view of the above discussion, the amount received by the assessee
\nfrom the \u2018HUF\u2019, being its member, is a capi tal receipt in his hands and
\nis not exigible to income tax.
\nIn view of our observat ions made above, the appeal of the assessee
\nstands al lowed on al l the three counts as discussed above.
\nOrder pronounced in the Open Court on 17.07.2019.
\nSd\/- Sd\/-
\n(\u0006\u0014$\u0007%
\n\u0015\u001c \u0012&’#\u0015 \/ ANNAPURNA GUPTA)
\n\t()\u0015 \u0019\u001e\u001f\u0002\/ Accountant Member
\n(\u0019\u001a\u001b\u0002 \u0012\u0012\u001c \/ SANJAY GARG)
\n\u0014\u0002\u0015\u001d\u0002\u0003 \u0019\u001e\u001f\u0002\/ Judicial Member
\nDated : 17.07.2019<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
As per the provisions of section 56 (2) (vi i) of the Act , though the members of the ‘HUF’ are to be taken relatives of the ‘HUF’ for the purpose of the said sect ion, however, the converse is not true that is to say that ‘HUF’ is not a relative of the individual member as per meaning of relative given in the case if individual under explanation to sect ion 56(2)(vi i) of the Act<\/p>\n