RADHAKISHAN DEVKINANDAN BRIJWASI,LATUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, LATUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.582/PUN/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Radhakishan Devkinandan Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Latur. Brijwasi, Mathura Confectionary Main Road, Latur- 413512. PAN : AEOPB3486P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue by : Shri Sandeep Jumale (Virtual) Date of hearing : 03.08.2026 Date of pronouncement : 16.10.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Madurai [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. There is delay in filing of the present appeal. After going through the application for condonation of delay, we are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was

2 ITA No.582/PUN/2026 prevented by sufficient & reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Erroneous Addition: The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 6,73,331/- without appreciating the fact that the interest income was on a jointly held Fixed Deposit and half of the income was already disclosed and taxed in the hands of the joint holder. 2. Double Taxation: The addition leads to double taxation of the same income which violates settled principles of taxation. 3. Consistent Treatment of Joint Investment: The appellant has consistently treated the investment and interest as jointly held with his son since 2012, both in financial disclosures and tax returns. 4. No Change in Ownership Structure: There has been no alteration in the joint nature of the FD since its inception. Thus, relying solely on the TDS certificate issued by the bank in single name, which is factually incorrect and unilaterally done by the bank, is legally untenable. 5. Misplaced Reliance on TDS Certificate: The CIT(A) erred in relying solely on the TDS certificate and ignoring documentary evidence of co-ownership and disclosures made by the co-holder. 6. Violation of Natural Justice: The rejection of valid evidence submitted by the assessee including the bank’s clarification, co- holder’s ITR, and affidavits, without cogent reasoning, amounts to violation of natural justice. 7. Improper Consideration of Evidence: The lower authorities failed to properly consider the evidence that the interest income was already declared and tax paid by the joint holder. 8. Against Point 5.3 of CIT(A)'s Order: The CIT(A) erred in concluding that the FD belonged entirely to the appellant merely because of TDS deduction and FD classification as Senior Citizen. The investment was made jointly and the interest has been appropriately bifurcated and disclosed by both holders. Reliance may be placed on the decision of CIT v. Manju Agarwal

3 ITA No.582/PUN/2026 [2010] 189 Taxman 123 (All), where it was held that joint holders are assessable only on their respective beneficial share. 9. Against Point 5.4 of CIT(A)'s Order: The CIT(A) misdirected in treating the entire interest as appellant's income ignoring established legal position that ownership of deposit is determined by source of investment and agreement between parties, not merely TDS credit. In ITO v. Smt. Rekha Bajaj [2017] 81 taxmann.com 326 (ITAT Delhi), it was held that even if TDS is in one name, income should be taxed in the correct hands. 10. Against Point 5.5 of CIT(A)'s Order: The CIT(A) further erred in questioning the ITR of the appellant's son without any legal basis or proper examination. The son's ITR shows due tax paid and refund claimed. The addition on account of presumed incorrectness of son's return amounts to double taxation and is contrary to principles laid in CIT v. Late Shantabai D. Karandikar [1989] 44 Taxman 18 (Bom), where it was held that once income is taxed in one hand, same income cannot be taxed again. 11. Against Point 5.6 of CIT(A)'s Order: The CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's addition despite concrete evidence that the interest income was already disclosed by both joint holders. Double taxation is a violation of Article 265 of the Constitution. Mere procedural anomalies in TDS certificates cannot override substantive tax compliance. 12. Misapplication of Section 64: The addition wrongly assumes the entire income belongs to the appellant. No evidence has been provided to invoke clubbing provisions under Section 64, nor is there any presumption that the joint holder is a minor or spouse. 13. Equity and Substance over Form: The principle of substance over form requires that the income be taxed in the hands of the rightful owner. Mere reflection of TDS in one name cannot override real ownership and source of investment.” 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of confectionary shop and also in the receipt of interest from fixed deposits and has furnished return of income on 19.12.2017 declaring income of Rs.6,75,190/- after

4 ITA No.582/PUN/2026 claiming deduction amounting to Rs.1,57,382/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) respectively were issued to the assessee. On verification of Form 26AS, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has received interest amounting to Rs.12,21,576/- on fixed deposit with Janta Sahakari Bank Private Limited on which TDS of Rs.1,22,158/- was also made. It was observed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has claimed whole of the TDS of Rs.1,22,158/- however, the assessee has offered interest amounting to Rs.5,48,245/- out of total interest income of Rs.12,21,576/- only, in his return of income. In this regard, the assessee submitted that the assessee has invested in Fixed Deposit as on 10.08.2012 of Rs.90,10,000/- bearing no.2141/3273/2 on reinvestment basis with Jantata Sahakari Bank Ltd. Pune, Branch Latur jointly with his son Gopal Radhakishan Brijwasi, on which interest of Rs.10,96,489/- was earned during the year & his son has already shown his 50% share of interest income of Rs.5,48,244/- in his return of income and therefore, the assessee also disclosed in his return of income the balance 50% interest income of Rs.5,48,244/-which belongs to him.

5 ITA No.582/PUN/2026 It was also submitted that he was the first holder therefore, the TDS was deducted in his name although the interest income pertains to both of them i.e. the assessee himself and his son Gopal Radhakishan Brijwasi. Not being satisfied with the above reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 30.09.2019 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the IT Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs.13,48,521/- as against the income of Rs.6,75,190/- returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.6,73,331/- (Rs.12,21,576 – Rs.5,48,222/-) being the remaining interest not shown by the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Since Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the contention of the assessee, the appeal was dismissed. 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that there is no dispute that

6 ITA No.582/PUN/2026 the assessee and his son were in receipt of compensation on account of compulsory acquisition of their agricultural land by the Government and it is the claim that for the purposes of enhanced compensation the case was pending before District Court, Latur and in this connection a joint FDR was prepared in the name of the assessee as well as his son Gopal Radhakishan Brijwasi. In this regard, we find that earlier also for assessment year 2013-14 the assessee and his son filed an appeal before this Tribunal in connection with interest on enhanced compensation on acquisition of land through ITA No.1434 & 1435/PUN/2017. It is also not disputed that the impugned joint FDR has earned interest of only Rs.10,96,489/- instead of Rs.12,21,576/- as alleged by the Assessing Officer which is proved with the help of certificate issued by Janta Sahkari Bank Ltd. wherein it was certified that the impugned FDR earned interest of Rs.10,96,489/- only. Regarding balance interest income of Rs.1,25,088/- appearing in Form 26AS it was submitted that the assessee has already disclosed above interest income in his return of income as per following calculation :- 50% share of interest income on impugned FDR - Rs.5,48,245/- Other interest income disclosed - Rs.1,25,088/- Total interest income disclosed by the assessee - Rs.6,73,333/-

7 ITA No.582/PUN/2026 8. On the basis of certificate of interest issued by Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. which is placed in paper book at page no.6 it is apparent that total interest on joint FDR was Rs.10,96,489/- and only 50% interest pertains to the assessee which comes to Rs.5,48,245/- and the same has already been disclosed by the assessee in his return of income along with other interest of Rs.1,25,088/-. From the perusal of copy of income tax return of assessment year 2017-18 filed by the son of the assessee i.e. Gopal Radhakishan Brijwasi, it is apparent that he has also disclosed an amount of Rs.5,69,281/- under the head “Income from other sources” and it was claimed by the assessee that the above income includes interest income of Rs.5,48,245/- generated from the joint FDR. 9. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in view of our above discussion, we are of the opinion that order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is not correct wherein he confirmed the addition of Rs.6,73,331/- regarding interest income, since interest income of Rs.5,48,244/- was already disclosed by the son of the assessee (Gopal Radhakishan Brijwasi) and remaining other interest income of Rs.1,25,088/- was already disclosed by the assessee in his return of income. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the

8 ITA No.582/PUN/2026 order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.6,73,331/-. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 16th day of October, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 16th October, 2026. Sujeet/DOC आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Addl./JCIT(A), Madurai. 4. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, Sunil Kumar Digitally signed by Sunil Kumar // True Copy // More More Assistant Registrar Date: 2026.10.25 10:54:52 +05'30' आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.