Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's twin appeals concerned assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20. The lower authorities held the assessee assessable for interest income earned by her son, Sh. Yashil Punia, in her hands, amounting to Rs.9,62,524/- for the quantum appeal and Rs.9,63,240/- for the penalty appeal.
Held
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's son, Sh. Yashil Punia, had attained majority in the relevant previous year, the interest income earned by him could not be assessed in the hands of the assessee under section 64 of the Act. Similarly, for the penalty appeal, the Tribunal noted that section 270A(6) excludes 'bonafide' cases.
Key Issues
Whether the interest income earned by the assessee's son, who had attained majority, could be assessed in the hands of the assessee and if penalty was leviable for underreporting such income.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 270A, 64
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 09.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 09.02.2026 ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals & 208/Del/2026 for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders, both dated 29.10.2025 having DIN and Order Nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1082116210(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1082117168(1), involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Delay of 8 days in filing both the asseessee’s instant appeals is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
Coming to the assessee’s quantum appeal herein, it transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have held her as assessable for interest income amounting to Rs.9,62,524/- accruing/arising in the name of Sh. Yashil Punia in her hands, in assessment order dated 06.03.2023 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
It is in this factual backdrop that the tribunal hereby notices from a perusal of the case records; and, more particularly, in light of the Assessing Officer’s remand report dated 02.07.2025 filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC (pages 52 to 54) that the assessee’s son Sh. Yashil Punia has been already held as having attained majority in the relevant previous year in whose name TDS also stood deducted as informed by the bank officers. This tribunal is of the considered view that given the fact that the assessee’ son had attained majority, both the learned lower authorities could not have assessed her interest income u/s 64 of the Act. The impugned