2024 (3) TMI 733 - HC - Income Tax

Validity of Reopening of assessment - acquisition of immovable property jointly - husband s assessment in hands of wife - addition made as assessee has not submitted the details of source of sum paid for purchase of property by her husband, source and the details of receipt of amount from the relatives, whereas the husband s income is only Rs. 18,49,980/- - as submitted property was purchased by her husband and all the payments were made by him and Petitioner also explained that Petitioner s name was included as a joint holder in the agreement for sale, but no payment has been made by Petitioner HELD THAT - Revenue has strongly opposed the petition, but at the end he agreed that those details have to be sought from the husband for husband s assessment and not from Petitioner herein because the AO has accepted that Petitioner has not made any payment for purchase of property. We also have to notice that surprisingly the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax has also accorded sanction for issuance of this order instead of directing the AO to drop the proceedings against Petitioner. We hereby quash and set aside the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act, because in our opinion, it is not a fit case for reopening the assessment in the case of Petitioner.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involved in this case is whether the notice issued to a housewife for reopening assessment under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information suggesting that income chargeable to tax for Assessment Year 2016-2017 has escaped assessment, is justified.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Notice for Reopening Assessment
The Petitioner, a housewife with no income, received a notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, alleging that income chargeable to tax for AY 2016-2017 had escaped assessment due to high-value transactions. The notice required the Petitioner to show cause as to why proceedings under Section 148 should not be initiated. The Petitioner's response included details showing that the property in question was purchased by her husband, with no contribution from her. Despite this, an order was passed under Section 148A(d) stating that the income had escaped assessment. The Court found that the order was unjustified as the Petitioner had not made any payments for the property in question.

Issue 2: Justification of Reopening Assessment
The Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 148A(d) stating that the income had escaped assessment, primarily due to the lack of details regarding the source of payment for the property purchased by the Petitioner's husband. The Respondent argued against the petition, but ultimately agreed that the details should have been sought from the husband's assessment, not the Petitioner's. The Court noted that the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax had sanctioned the order, but found that it was not a suitable case for reopening the assessment. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the order dated 31st March 2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay quashed the order for reopening the assessment, stating that it was not justified in the case of the Petitioner, a housewife with no income. The Court found that the details regarding the source of payment for the property should have been sought from the husband's assessment, not the Petitioner's. The order dated 31st March 2023 under Section 148A(d) was set aside, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.