Held that where the Commissioner had nowhere held in his order that the assessment was both erroneous and caused prejudice to the interests of the Revenue, simultaneously, the order of the Commissioner was not sustainable. Disallowance of commission is held to be justified. Tribunal also held that once the income is accepted in the Hand of HUF the said income cannot be assessed in the hands of individual.(AY. 2007-08)
Nimmala Srinivas (HUF) v. ACIT (2021) 89 ITR 10 (SN) (Hyd.)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-No finding that the order is erroneous and prejudicial interest of revenue-Revision was held to be not valid-Disallowance of commission was held to be justified-Once the income is accepted in the Hand of HUF the said income cannot be assessed in the hands of individual. [S. 45]