9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthra and Luthra. He has filed his return of income at Rs. 12,43,050/- on 31.03.2007 and same was duly processed u/s. 143(1) on 12.07.2007. On 30th March, 2013 a notice u/s. 148 was issued in the name of minor daughter of the assessee Ms. Jyotika Chandhoke. The copy of which is reproduced hereunder: 3. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer read as under: 4. The relevant observation of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order for taking the action for framing the assessment in the hands of the assessee is as under: "A search operation was carried out on 17.08.2011 by the Investigation Wing, New Delhi in the case of AEZ Group (Parts of Aerens Group) engaged in the business of real estate. During the search operation certain documents, hard disk and lap tops containing details of undisclosed consideration for the sale constructed/booked areas relating to various projects undertaken by this group were seized. The same have been co-related party-wise and further searches were conducted in respect of 7 groups of cases who made substantial investments in cash in the projects of the Aerens Groups. The searches were successful and the persons concerned admitted the undisclo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Chandhoke u/s. 64(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Under such circumstances Sh. Harneet Singh Chandhoke, father of Ms. Jyotika Chandhoke, automatically and due to provisions of law steps into the shoes of Ms. Jyotika Chandhoke i.e. he is the assessee. In view of these facts the case was transferred to the undersigned where sh. Harneet Singh Chandhoke is assessed. Hence the undersigned issued notice on 10.01.2014 u/s.142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 seeking details and information with regard to transactions of commercial property in the said project entered into in the name of his daughter and by using her PAN. 5. The assessee has raised the objection before the Assessing Officer. However, the same was rejected after observing as under: Here, it is pertinent to mention the points of rejection of the objection raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. Why the assessee got PAN allotted in the name of his minor child in the absence of income from her own specified knowledge/skills/ability and used that for transactions of the property under question. 2. Since, investment has been made in the said property in her name and by using her PAN for which he was solely responsible. The AO, Ward ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . ITO, Ward-1(3), New Delhi who was having jurisdiction of Ms. Jyotika Chandhoke issued the notice u/s.148 for reopening the case as no return of income was filed by her and Assessing Officer had the reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment and accordingly, case was reopened u/s.147. From perusal of the reasons recorded, it is seen that Assessing Officer had the reasons to believe that there was escapement of income in the case of Ms. Jyotika Chandoke as she had not filed any return of income. Therefore, the twins conditions for reopening the case are satisfied. Appellant has claimed that notice issued under Section 148 is beyond the statutory time limit, it is seen that Assessing Officer had issued the notice u/s. 148 in the case of Ms. Jyotika Chandoke within the prescribed time limit. From perusal of the document seized, it is seen that name of purchaser is mentioned as Jyotika Chandoke and not Appellant for purchase of 500 sq. ft. Appellant claims to have booked the space in his name whereas he has made the payments from the bank account of his daughter Ms. Jyotika Chandoke. From the seized documents, it is seen that booking is in the name of Ms. Jyotika Chandoke d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has deliberately used the PAN of his minor daughter for making investment in the space at Indirapuram Habitat Centre Project, Ghaziabad and, therefore, he has willfully not disclosed his PAN so that the investments even if made in his daughter's name or from daughter's account was not fully and truly disclosed. Therefore, Assessing Officer is correct in holding that notice u/s. 148 issue to Ms. Jyotika Chandoke was valid as there was failure on account of Appellant to disclose fully and truly all material facts in his case. The case (laws relied on by the Appellant was on different facts as in those cases, there was no separate PAN in the name of minor. Further, in view of the provisions of Section 292B notice u/s. 148 is deemed to valid as Appellant has not disclosed the entire information in his ITR which he is filing his ITR through his PAN whereas he has also taken a PAN of his minor daughter Miss Jyotika Chandoke. Therefore, in the case of Appellant, Section 292B will be applicable which is reproduced as under 292B. No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In case, the Assessing Officer sought to make the assessee as representative assessee u/s. 160(ii), then it was incumbent upon him to issue a notice u/s. 148 in the case of the assessee as a representative assessee. Notice cannot be validated even if a notice has been issued in a different name with different PAN and at the same time the income can be assessed in the hands of different assessee, because, Shri Harneet Singh Chandhoke is otherwise an independent assessee assessable to tax. It is not a case of rectifiable mistake u/s. 292B, because even in the reasons recorded the Assessing Officer has entertained reasons to believe that it was the escapement of income in the hands of Ms. Jyotika Chandhoke and not the assessee. The action of the Assessing Officer itself shows that there is no application of mind on the material coming into his possession as to whether income escaping assessment belongs to the assessee and not to the assessee's minor daughter. The right course under the law should have been that the assessee's case, should have been reopened and notice u/s. 148, should have been issued in the name of Shri Harneet Singh Chandhoke and if there is any undisclosed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
