Sh. Harneet Singh Chandhoke, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3642/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9264 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Document seized; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Reason to believe; Documents seized
• Section: 142(1); 124(5); 48; 13; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.3642/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI HARNEET SINGH CHANDHOKE, 5-A, FACTORY ROAD, KRISHNA NAGAR, OPPOSITE B-4/187C, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI. VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI. TAN/PAN: AAKCS4913P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI SAKSHAM SINGHAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AVIKAL MANU, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 24 06 2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 07 2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.03.2016, PASSED BY LD. CIT(A)-XII, NEW DELHI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S.143(3)/147 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 AND NOTICE U/S.148 ON VARIOUS GROUNDS THAT NOTICE U /S.148 DATED 30.03.2013 WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF MS . JYOTIKA CHANDHOKE , THE MINOR DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, THE NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE / APPELLANT. ON MERIT S, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION AND ALLEGED CA SH PAYMENT OF RS.19,93,560/-. ITA. NO.3642/DEL/2016 2 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN I NDIVIDUAL AND PROPRIETOR OF M/S. LUTHRA AND LUTHRA. HE HAS FI LED HIS RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.12,43,050/- ON 310.3.2007 AN D SAME WAS DULY PROCESSED U/S.143(1) ON 12.07.2007. ON 30 TH 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: ITA. NO.3642/DEL/2016 3 3. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE AD AS UNDER: ITA. NO.3642/DEL/2016 4 4. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R 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 B Y THE INVESTIGATION WING, NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF AEZ GR OUP (PARTS OF AERENS GROUP) ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTAT E. DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION CERTAIN DOCUMENTS, HARD DISK AND L AP TOPS CONTAINING DETAILS OF UNDISCLOSED CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE CONSTRUCTED/BOOKED AREAS RELATING TO VARIOUS PROJEC TS UNDERTAKEN BY THIS GROUP WERE SEIZED. THE SAME HAVE BEEN CO- RELATED PARTY-WISE AND FURTHER SEARCHES WERE CONDUC TED IN RESPECT OF 7 GROUPS OF CASES WHO MADE SUBSTANTIAL I NVESTMENTS IN CASH IN THE PROJECTS OF THE AERENS GROUPS. THE S EARCHES WERE SUCCESSFUL AND THE PERSONS CONCERNED ADMITTED THE U NDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS IN CASH IN THE PROJECTS OF AERENS GROUP . THERE WERE MANY OTHER PERSONS WHO HAD INVESTED SUBSTANTIAL AMO UNTS IN CASH. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS INFORMATION IN THE CAS E OF MS. JYOTIKA CHANDHOKE WHO WAS ONE OF THOSE PERSONS WHO ALSO MADE SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN CASH AND HAVING PAN AAHMP7976L WERE SENT TO THE AO WHO WAS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE MS. JYOTIKA CHANDHOK ACCORDING TO PAN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE PERUSAL OF DOCUMENTS AND HARD DISK SEIZED FROM THE CORPORATE OFFICE OF AEZ GROUP AT BAKSHI HOUSE, NEHR U PLACE, NEW DELHI (COPY OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS) REVEAL S THAT THERE WAS INVESTMENT IN THE NAME OF MS. JYOTIKA CHANDHOKE FOR GROUND FLOOR (COMMERCIAL) IN INDIRAPURAM HABITAT CE NTRE PROJECT, GHAZIABAD FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.33,43,560 /-, OUT OF ITA. NO.3642/DEL/2016 5 WHICH A SUM OF RS. 13,50,000/- WERE PAID THROUGH BA NKING CHANNEL, WHICH IS ADMITTED FACT BY THE ASSESSEE AND RS. 1993560/- IN CASH, WHICH HAS BEEN DENIED BY THE ASS ESSEE. BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. ONE LAC WAS PAYABLE THROUGH C HEQUE. THE INVESTIGATION WING, NEW DELHI ANALYZED THE DETA ILS SEIZED DURING SEARCH OPERATION AND FOUND THAT MS. JYOTIKA CHANDHOKE WAS HAVING PAN AHMPC7976L WHICH WAS IN THE JURISDIC TION OF WARD-T(3), NEW DELHI. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE IN VESTIGATION WING SENT INFORMATION TO THE AO OF WARD-1(3), NEW D ELHI. AFTER RECEIVING SUCH INFORMATION THE AO, WARD-1(3), NEW DELHI FOUND THAT NO ITR HAS BEEN FILED ON THE SAID PAN. K EEPING IN VIEW ALL FACTS THE AO HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT TR ANSACTIONS HAD ESCAPED THE TAX AND ACCORDINGLY HE ISSUED NOTIC E ON 30/03/2013 U/S 148 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 BY SPEED POST WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON MS. JYOTIKA CHANDHOKE. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE/REPLY WAS RECEIVED VIDE LETTE R DT. 05/04/2013 GIVING INFORMATION AND COPY OF ITR OF SH . HARNEET SINGH CHANDHOKE, FATHER OF MS. JYOTIKA CHANDHOKE, I N WHOSE ITR INCOME OF MS. JYOTIKA CHANDHOKE IS CLUBBED U/S 64(1A) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. IN THIS MANNER IT WAS STATED T HAT FOR ALL TRANSACTIONS IN THE NAME MS. JYOTIKA CHANDHOKE SH. HARNEET SINGH CHANDHOKE IS THE ASSESSEE I.E. REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE AND CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 18.05.2013. . AS MENTIONED ABOVE THAT IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTIC E OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT MS. JYOTIKA CHANDHOKE IS MINOR AND HER INCOME IS CLUBBED IN THE INCOME OF HER FATHER SH. H ARNEET SINGH CHANDHOKE U/S 64(1A) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. UNDER SUCH ITA. NO.3642/DEL/2016 6 CIRCUMSTANCES SH. HARNEET SINGH CHANDHOKE, FATHER O F MS. JYOTIKA CHANDHOKE, AUTOMATICALLY AND DUE TO PROVISI ONS OF LAW STEPS INTO THE SHOES OF MS. JYOTIKA CHANDHOKE I.E. HE IS THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE CASE WAS TRANS FERRED TO THE UNDERSIGNED WHERE SH. HARNEET SINGH CHANDHOKE IS AS SESSED. HENCE THE UNDERSIGNED ISSUED NOTICE ON 10.01.2014 U /S 142(1) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 SEEKING DETAILS AND INFORMAT ION WITH REGARD TO TRANSACTIONS OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IN THE SAID PROJECT ENTERED INTO IN THE NAME OF HIS DAUGHTER AND BY USI NG HER PAN. 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE OBJECTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS REJECTED A FTER OBSERVING AS UNDER: HERE, IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THE POINTS OF REJE CTION OF THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: - 1. WHY THE ASSESSEE GOT PAN ALLOTTED IN THE NAME O F HIS MINOR CHILD IN THE ABSENCE OF INCOME FROM HER OWN SPECIFI ED KNOWLEDGE/SKILLS/ABILITY AND USED THAT FOR TRANSACT IONS OF THE PROPERTY UNDER QUESTION. 2. SINCE, INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE SAID PROP ERTY IN HER NAME AND BY USING HER PAN FOR WHICH HE WAS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE. THE AO, WARD-1(3), NEW DELHI WAS HAVIN G JURISDICTION ACCORDING TO PAN. WHY THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN HIS PAN. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS NOTICE ISSUED U/S 1 48 IS VALID AB- INITIO. 3. THE DEPARTMENT CAME TO KNOW THE STATUS OF THE AS SESSEE BEING MINOR CHILD FOR WHICH ASSESSEE, FATHER OF THE MINOR CHILD, IS REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE U/S 160(II) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, ITA. NO.3642/DEL/2016 7 1961. MOREOVER, FOR MINOR CHILD IN THIS CASE SH. HA RNEET SINGH CHANDHOKE IS ASSESSEE AS HE STEPS INTO THE SHOES OF HER MINOR CHILD UNTIL UNLESS THE MINOR CHILD HAS ANY INCOME F ROM HER OWN SPECIFIED KNOWLEDGE/SKILLS/ABILITY. IN THE INSTANT CASE MINOR HAS NO SPECIFIED KNOWLEDGE/SKILLS/ABILITY. HENCE, NOTIC E U/S 148 ISSUED ON 30.03.2013 IS VALID. 4. THE DEPARTMENT WAS REQUESTED THROUGH NEW PAN APP LICATION TO ALLOT PAN TO HIS MINOR DAUGHTER UNDER THE DIRECT ION/GUIDANCE OF SH. HARNEET SINGH CHANDKOKE AND THE SAME HAS BEE N USED WHILE INVESTING MONEY IN THE PROPERTY IN HER NAME. IN THIS MANNER IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSE HAD CONCEALED TH E FACTS AND MISLED THE DEPARTMENT. 5. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 120 OF THE I.T. ACT , 1961 OBJECTION IN RESPECT PI JURISDICTION COULD BE MADE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE OBJEC TIONS WERE RAISED AFTER 30 DAYS WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN TH E EYES OF LAW. 6. ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED TO FRAM E THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREBY MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.90,93,560/- U/S.69 HOLDING THAT SAME HAS BEEN MADE IN CASH. 7. LD. CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAID ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE PROV ISION OF SECTION 292B, THE NOTICE IS DEEMED TO BE VALID. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION READS AS UNDER: 9.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY HIM. APPELLANT HAS AGITATED THAT NO NOTICE ITA. NO.3642/DEL/2016 8 U/S 148 WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SH. HAMEET SINGH CHANDHOKE. INSTEAD, THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED IN THE NA ME OF HIS MINOR DAUGHTER MS. JYOTIKA CHANDHOKE. FROM THE PERU SAL OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING THE CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INFORMATION THAT MS. JYOTIKA CHANDHOKE HAD MADE AN AGREEMENT FOR GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL 500 SQ. FT. WITH INDIRAPURAM HABITAT CEN TRE PROJECT, GHAZIABAD AND TOTAL SUM OF THIS WAS RS.34, 43,560/- OUT OF WHICH RS. 13,50,000/- WAS PAID IN CHEQUE AND RS. 19,93,560/- WAS PAID IN CASH. ITO, WARD-1(3), NEW D ELHI WHO WAS HAVING JURISDICTION OF MS. JYOTIKA CHANDHOKE IS SUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 FOR REOPENING THE CASE AS NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY HER AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAD THE REAS ONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND ACCO RDINGLY, CASE WAS REOPENED U/S 147. FROM PERUSAL OF THE REAS ONS 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 RETUR N OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE TWINS CONDITIONS FOR REOPENI NG THE CASE ARE SATISFIED. APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT NOTICE IS SUED 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 LIM IT. FROM PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENT SEIZED, IT IS SEEN THAT NAM E OF PURCHASER IS MENTIONED AS JYOTIKA CHANDOKE AND NOT APPELLANT FOR PURCHASE OF 500 SQ. FT. APPELLANT CLA IMS TO HAVE BOOKED THE SPACE IN HIS NAME WHEREAS HE HAS MADE TH E PAYMENTS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF HIS DAUGHTER MS. JYOTIKA CHANDOKE. FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, IT IS SEEN THA T BOOKING ITA. NO.3642/DEL/2016 9 IS IN THE NAME OF MS. JYOTIKA CHANDOKE D/O SH. H.S. CHANDOKE AND IN THE SEARCH DOCUMENTS, THE DETAILS O F PAYMENT IN CASH AND CHEQUE ARE MENTIONED WHICH ASSE SSING OFFICER EXAMINED AND AFTER EXAMINING THE CASE OF HI S JURISDICTION, HE ARRIVED AT THE FINDING THAT MS. JY OTIKA CHANDOKE HAD NOT FILED THE RETURN. APPELLANT HAD FU RTHER CLAIMED THAT NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED BY THE JURI SDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER AND, THEREFORE, IS AB-INITIO VOID , IS BEYOND STATUTORY TIME LIMIT. IT IS SEEN THAT NOTICE U/S 14 8 WAS ISSUED ON 30.03.2013. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF R.K. UPADHYAYA VS. SHANABHAI P. PATEL, 166 ITR 163 HAVE HELD THAT ASSESSMENT IS VALID IF NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSU ED WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD. APPELLANT HAD CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE U/S 148 ON 20.05.2013. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISPOSED OFF THE OBJECTION OF REOPENING VIDE ORDER DATED 26. 12.2013. SHE HELD THAT CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION WAS NOT MAD E WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE AND, THEREFORE, OBJECT ION TO JURISDICTION WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE. APPELLANT HAS NO T ANYTHING STATED ON THE FINDING OF ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS S EEN THAT APPELLANT CLAIMS TO HAVE MADE BOOKING IN HIS NAME W HEREAS ALL THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE BANK ACCOU NT OF HIS DAUGHTER. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT THOUGH APPEL LANT WAS CLUBBING THE INCOME OF HIS DAUGHTER IN HIS RETURN O F INCOME, HE HAD TAKEN SEPARATE PAN IN THE NAME OF HER DAUGHTER AND HAS USED THE SAME WHILE MAKING INVESTMENT FROM BANK ACC OUNT OF HIS DAUGHTER. THEREFORE, IT IS SEEN THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE ENTIRE FACTS IN HIS ITR FILED. FURTHE R, FROM PERUSAL OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL, IT IS SEEN THAT APPELLANT H AD BOOKED A SPACE IN THE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL OF 500 SQ. FT. FOR WHICH ITA. NO.3642/DEL/2016 10 PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN BOTH CASH AND CHEQUE. THE PAYMENT BY CHEQUE IS RS.13,50,000/- WHEREAS PAYMENT IN CASH IE RS. 19,93,560/- TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS.33,43 ,560/- AND BALANCE RS. 1,00,000/- WAS LEFT TO BE PAID. THE REFORE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE SPACE BUYERS AGREEMENT DATED 26.0 4.2011 WHICH APPELLANT HAS FILED IS A SEPARATE AGREEMENT I N WHICH APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED AN AREA 770 SQ. FT. BEARING UB-20 ON UPPER BASEMENT FLOOR. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT NOTI CE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER OF MS. JYOTIKA CHANDOKE. THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS THE INHERENT JURISDICTION IN VIEW OF SECTION 124(5) OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS VALID. APP ELLANT HAS DELIBERATELY USED THE PAN OF HIS MINOR DAUGHTER FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE SPACE AT INDIRAPURAM HABITAT CENT RE PROJECT, GHAZIABAD AND, THEREFORE, HE HAS WILLFULLY NOT DISCLOSED HIS PAN SO THAT THE INVESTMENTS EVEN IF M ADE IN HIS DAUGHTERS NAME OR FROM DAUGHTERS ACCOUNT WAS NOT FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSED. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER I S CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUE TO MS. JYOTIKA CH ANDOKE WAS VALID AS THERE WAS FAILURE ON ACCOUNT OF APPELL ANT 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 SECTIO N 292B NOTICE U/S 148 IS DEEMED TO VALID AS APPELLANT HAS NOT DIS CLOSED THE ENTIRE INFORMATION IN HIS ITR WHICH HE IS FILING HI S ITR THROUGH HIS PAN WHEREAS HE HAS ALSO TAKEN A PAN OF HIS MINO R DAUGHTER MISS JYOTIKA CHANDOKE. THEREFORE, IN THE C ASE OF APPELLANT, SECTION 292B WILL BE APPLICABLE WHICH IS ITA. NO.3642/DEL/2016 11 REPRODUCED AS UNDER 292B. NO RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMM ONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING, FURNISHED OR MADE OR ISSUED OR TAKEN OR PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN FURNISHED OR MADE OR ISSU ED OR TAKEN IN PURSUANCE OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE INVALID OR SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE INVALID M ERELY BY REASON OF ANY MISTAKE, DEFECT OR OMISSION IN SUCH R ETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEE DING IF SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMO NS OR OTHER PROCEEDING IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONF ORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT. 9.5 THEREFORE, NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF MISS JYOTIKA CHANDOKE MINOR DAUGHTER OF APPELLANT IS NOT INVALID AS BECAME OF TWO PAN S OF APPELLANT ONE IN THE NAM E OF APPELLANT AND ONE IN THE NAME OF HIS MINOR DAUGHTER , ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMMITTED THE MISTAKE IN ISSU ING THE NOTICE IN THE NAME OF MISS JYOTIKA CHANDOKE WHICH I S ON ACCOUNT OF TWO PANS TAKEN BY APPELLANT ONE IN HIS O WN NAME AND ONE IN THE NAME OF HIS MINOR DAUGHTER MISS JYOT IKA CHANDOKE. FURTHER, IT MAY BE STATED THAT WHILE VERI FYING THE JURISDICTION OF ANY ASSESSEE FROM PAN DATABASE OF DEPARTMENT WEBSITE INCOMETAXINDIAEFILING.GOV.IN, TH ERE IS NO MENTION OF DATE OF BIRTH OF ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL NOT KNOW THE FACT THAT AN AS SESSEE IS A MINOR BEFOREHAND AND, THEREFORE, ISSUE OF NOTICE IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE INTENT AND PUR POSE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREFORE, GROUNDS NO. 2 TO 9 ARE D ISMISSED. ITA. NO.3642/DEL/2016 12 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON P ERUSAL OF THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT IT I S AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED IN THE NAME OF MS. JYOTIKA CHANDHOKE DAUGHTER OF SHRI HARNEET SINGH CHANDHOKE AND EVEN IN THE REASONS RECORDED, THE REA SON TO BELIEVE FOR INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN ENT ERTAINED IN THE CASE OF MS. JYOTIKA CHANDHOKE ONLY. EVEN THE PAN MENTIONED IN THE REASONS RECORDED IS DIFFERENT WHER EAS THE PAN OF THE ASSESSEE IS AAAPC2258C. ONCE NO VALID NO TICE HAS BEEN ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHOS E CASE ASSESSMENT HAS SOUGHT TO BE MADE U/S. 143(3)/147, T HE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS U/S.148 AND THEREBY FRAMING OF T HE ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME VOID ABINITIO . IT IS A TRITE LAW THAT THE JURISDICTION CAN BE ACQ UIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSME NT U/S.147 ONLY BY SERVING THE VALID NOTICE IN THE NAM E OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS THAT INCOM E CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE. 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 C ANNOT BE VALIDATED EVEN IF A NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED IN A DIF FERENT NAME WITH DIFFERENT PAN AND AT THE SAME TIME THE INCOME CAN BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEE, BECAUS E, SHRI HARNEET SINGH CHANDHOKE IS OTHERWISE AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSEE ASSESSABLE TO TAX. IT IS NOT A CASE OF REC TIFIABLE MISTAKE U/S.292B, BECAUSE EVEN IN THE REASONS RECOR DED THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ENTERTAINED REASONS TO BELIEV E THAT IT ITA. NO.3642/DEL/2016 13 WAS THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF MS. JY OTIKA CHANDHOKE AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. THE ACTION OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER ITSELF SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO APPLICATION O F MIND ON THE MATERIAL COMING INTO HIS POSSESION AS TO WHETHE R INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE AND NOT TO THE ASSESSEES MINOR DAUGHTER. THE RIGHT COURSE UNDER T HE LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE, SHOULD H AVE BEEN REOPENED AND NOTICE U/S.148, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUE D IN THE NAME OF SHRI HARNEET SINGH CHANDHOKE AND IF THERE I S ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGING TO THE MINOR, THEN SAM E OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. TH US, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.147/143 (3) WHICH HAS B EEN FRAMED ON THE BASIS OF NOTICE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF MINOR DAUGHTER, MS. JYOTIKA CHANDHOKE AND A DIFFERENT PAN CANNOT VALIDATE THE PROCEEDINGS. HENCE, THE SAME IS QUASHE D AS VOID ABINITIO . ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JULY, 2021. SD/- SD/- [PRASHANT MAHARISHI] [AMIT SHUKLA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH JULY, 2021 PKK