2022 (2) TMI 765 - AT - Income Tax

Commission income belonged to the HUF or assessee - HELD THAT - Commission income in the case of the brother of the assessee was taxed in the hands of the HUF. A perusal of the computation of income of HUF of the assessee shows that the HUF has returned commission income and paid taxes thereon. Commission bill was submitted by the HUF to the Accounts Manager of Ajnara India Ltd. Referring to TDS Certificate issued by Ajnara India Ltd. showing TDS on commission paid to HUF of the assessee and bank account of the HUF of the assessee with Oriental Bank of Commerce, wherein commission has been deposited after TDS. Considering all we are of the considered opinion that the commission income belonged to the HUF and rightly returned by it. Therefore, correct hand for taxing such income is HUF and not the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition from the hands of the assessee. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the validity of the assessment order for being without jurisdiction.
2. Challenge to the addition of ?8,35,000 as income of the assessee.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] -IV, Kanpur's order for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee raised two grievances. Firstly, questioning the jurisdiction of the assessment order, which was dismissed as not pressed by the assessee's counsel. Secondly, challenging the addition of ?8,35,000 as the assessee's income. The Assessing Officer found that commission income was received from a flat sale, attributing it to the assessee instead of the HUF. The CIT(A) upheld this decision.

2. The assessee, during scrutiny assessment proceedings, had shown a total income of ?20,79,910. The Assessing Officer attributed the commission income to the assessee, leading to the addition of ?8,35,000. The assessee pointed out a similar case involving the brother, where the commission income was assessed in the HUF's hands. Documents, including the commission bill, accounts, TDS certificate, and bank transactions, supported the HUF's earning of the commission. After careful consideration, the Tribunal concluded that the commission income rightfully belonged to the HUF and not the assessee. Thus, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition from the assessee's hands.

3. The Tribunal found that the commission income was correctly returned by the HUF, supported by documentary evidence. Therefore, the correct entity for taxing such income was the HUF and not the individual assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of both parties' representatives on 09.02.2022.