M.G.PONNUSWAMY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai, dated 11.01.2016, for the assessment year 2008-09.

Shri G. Baskar, the Ld. counsel for the assessee, submitted that on the basis of Annual Information Report said to be received from Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., the Assessing Officer found that a sum of `14,06,030/- was deposited in the account of Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. The assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer that the deposit was made in HUF account at Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. The Ld.counsel submitted that the assessee (HUF) was maintaining account and the assessee does not have any individual account with Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. According to the Ld. counsel, the Assessing Officer has also found that the Annual Information Report was not tallying with the details furnished by the assessee. The CIT(Appeals) further found that the HUF does not maintain any business identity, therefore, whatever commission said to be received by the assessee belongs to the assessee (Individual) including the commission diverted to HUF. In fact, according to the Ld. counsel, the HUF filed return of income declaring the income of `14,06,030/- and paid the taxes.

On the contrary, Shri K.N. Dhandapani, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee admittedly deposited a sum of `14,06,030/- in the account maintained with Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. The assessee claimed before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(Appeals) that these are the money received by him as broker for purchase of land from various persons. However, the assessee could not furnish details before the Assessing Officer nor before the CIT(Appeals). In the absence of any material, the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The assessee appears to have claimed before the Assessing Officer that what was received by the assessee is for purchase of the lands on behalf of several persons, as broker. The assessee claims that money was deposited in the bank account of HUF. A copy of the bank account was not filed before this Tribunal. Therefore, this Tribunal is unable to examine the veracity of the statement made by the Ld. counsel for the assessee that the money was deposited in the HUF account and not in the individual account of the assessee. The assessee has also claimed before the authorities below that the HUF has already filed return of income and admitted the income. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the assessee claims that the money was received by him in his capacity as broker from prospective purchasers of the land, the details of persons from whom the money received needs to be examined. Unfortunately, both the authorities below have not examined the same. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of the authorities below are set aside and the entire issue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall reconsider the issue afresh in the light of the details of the persons from whom advance money for purchasing the land is said to be received and thereafter decide the issue in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.