SHRI SUCHHA SINGH THROUGH L/R RANJIT SINGH,KAPUTHALLA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

The Ld. AR advanced arguments supporting the assessment order and made out a case of one of the possible views as taken by Ld. AO during the course of regular assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR contended that sufficient explanations and documents were already furnished by the assessee during the course of regular assessment proceedings. It was further contended that reassessment proceedings itself was bad in law as borne out of recorded reasons. The Ld. AR filed written submissions and assailed the impugned order on various legal grounds to challenge the impugned revision of the order. The Ld. CIT- DR, on the other hand, advanced arguments supporting the impugned revisionary order. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under.

From the case records, it emerges that the assessee’s case was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee’s legal heir. The same was on the ground that the deceased assessee did not file regular return of income whereas it purchased an immoveable property for Rs.76.50 Lacs. To verify the sources of investment, the case was reopened. A return of income was filed in response to notice u/s 148 reflecting property / business income. Notices u/s 142(1) were issued and the case was duly discussed with the legal heir of the assessee. After due consideration, Ld. AO accepted the returned income vide assessment order dated 25-12-2018. This order was subjected to revision u/s 263 wherein it was alleged that no plausible explanation was furnished by the assessee on the investment so made in the immovable property. The assessment was framed out without carrying out necessary verification and accordingly, the assessee was show- caused. The assessee opposed the same, inter-alia, on the ground that the reassessment proceedings itself was bad-in-law since correct PAN of the deceased assessee was BJAPS1985G whereas reassessment proceedings as well as recorded reasons pertained to PAN AXAPS9513K. The reassessment proceedings were, therefore, bad-in- law since the same did not pertain to the person in whose hands reassessment proceedings were intended to be initiated. No enquiry was done by Ld. AO to support the recorded reason that the property was purchased by the assessee and the copy of purchase deed was never available with Ld. AO to support the allegation of escapement of income. There was no material to record to make belief of escapement of income. The reassessment was initiated on mere borrowed satisfaction and therefore, the order could not be subjected to revision u/s 263. The assessee denied having undertaken any such transaction. This being so, the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 could not have been invoked by Ld. Pr. CIT. The Ld. AO adopted one of the courses permissible in law and therefore, the order could not be said to be erroneous. However, Ld. Pr. CIT observed that the flagged issue would require verification and therefore, the assessment was set aside to Ld. AO for fresh assessment. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.