COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. GUNVANTLAL RATANCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal has referred the following question to this Court for its opinion :

(2.) THE assessee is an HUF. During the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1975 -76, it sold jewellery and gold ornaments for Rs. 57,089. The sale proceeds were reinvested by purchasing new jewellery and ornaments. According to the assessee, it was entitled to the relief/exemption under s. 54C of the Act. But the ITO took a different view and worked out capital gains in respect of sale of the said ornaments at Rs. 48,465. The reason why the ITO took that view was that the provisions of s. 54C apply to individuals any and not to HUFs. This view of the ITO was confirmed by the AAC in appeal. The Tribunal, however, held otherwise and, therefore, the Revenue moved the Tribunal to refer the above stated question to this Court.

(3.) WHAT is contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue is that though the word 'assessee' would include an individual, HUF and others, in the context in which it is used, it would mean an individual only. He submitted that the use which is contemplated by the section is personal use and, therefore, the assessee contemplated by the section is that assessee who can personally use jewellery. He also drew our attention to the expression 'any member of his family' and particularly emphasised the use of the word 'his' and submitted that these words also indicate that what was in contemplation of the legislature was an individual and not an HUF.