RAGHUNATH DASS SETHI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the assessee, the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar (for short, "the Tribunal"), has referred the "Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that s. 54 applies exclusively to individuals only and not to HUFs, particularly when the Finance Act, 1982, made a change in the

(2.) PURCHASED another house at Dhab Khatikan at Amritsar and shifted into the same soon after the purchase. The old house which was charged to income -tax for the asst. yr. 1976 -77. The assessee did not accept the liability as according to him, no capital gain had arisen from the sale of Swank Mandi house in view of the exemption available under s. 54 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"). This claim was rejected by the AO on the ground that since the family had already started living in the new house, the exemption under s. 54 of the Act was not available as it could be considered that the family had abandoned the old house at Swank Mandi and it was not used by it. Assessee preferred an appeal before the the sale of old house.

(3.) REVENUE preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed on the ground that the benefit of s. 54 was not available to the assessee, which was a HUF. According to the Tribunal, this benefit prior to the amendment of s. 54