Tribunal directs income attribution to HUF, not individual. Decision based on evidence.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to remove the addition of Rs. 8,35,000 from the individual assessee's income and attributing it to the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) instead. The Tribunal determined that the commission income rightly belonged to the HUF based on documentary evidence, including commission bill, accounts, TDS certificate, and bank transactions. The decision was made on 09.02.2022 in the presence of both parties' representatives.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the validity of the assessment order for being without jurisdiction.
2. Challenge to the addition of Rs. 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 20,79,910. The Assessing Officer attributed the commission income to the assessee, leading to the addition of Rs. 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.

---