Inder Kumar Singla v. Income Tax Officer, Kurukshetra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.1793 of 2011Date of decision: 31.01.2011 Inder Kumar Singla. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kurukshetra. -----Petitioner. -----Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Sr. Advocate withMr. G.S. Sullar, Advocatefor the petitioner. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order of initiating reassessment, rejecting the objections of the petitioner. 2. Reassessment was sought to be initiated on theallegation that during the assessment year 2007-08, it was foundthat the petitioner purchased land by investing money in differentnames from whom power of attorney was obtained and the saidland was later sold to various purchasers. The persons shown aspurchasers disowned the purchase. After notice to the petitionerand considering the objections filed by him, the impugned orderhas been passed. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatinitiation of reassessment proceedings was based on merechange of opinion and the reasons for proposed reassessmentare non-existent. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. 6. The basis for reassessment is not mere change ofopinion but the material indicated in the impugned order. Asregards sufficiency of reasons, we find that only explanationfurnished by the petitioner is that the petitioner did not purchasethe property benami but on behalf of ostensible purchasers andwith their funds. However, from the objections filed againstproposed reassessment, there was nothing to rebut the allegationthat the ostensible purchasers did not have the requisite funds.Even the vendors did not support the version of the petitioner.Though it has been mentioned in the objections of the ostensiblepurchasers that they had property having some value, there isnothing to show that they had the requisite funds. We cannotaccept the submission that once they had the property it shouldbe presumed that they had the funds. Allegation of lack of meansincluded lack of availability of funds and in absence of samebeing shown, the reasons for proposed reassessment cannot beheld to be non-existent. The impugned order cannot, thus, beheld to be without jurisdiction. Needless to say that the petitionerwill be at liberty to take all the pleas on merits about taxability of the alleged escapement of income before the statutory authorities in accordance with law. 7. The petition is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 31, 2011ashwani ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE