Reopening proceedings against wife should be dropped when the investment was made by husband: Bombay HC
Kalpita Arun Lanjekar Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) Appeal Number : Writ Petition No. 5966 of 2023
Facts:
- Notice received by Kalpita Arun Lanjekar from the Income Tax Officer, Ward-28(2)(1), under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice alleged that income chargeable to tax for the Assessment Year 20162017 had escaped assessment due to high-value transactions, particularly the purchase of immovable property valued at Rs. 30,00,000 or more.
- Despite explanations and documentary evidence provided by Kalpita, including the fact that the property was purchased solely by her husband, the order was still passed U/S 148A(d). The order cited a lack of details regarding the source of funds for the property purchase.
Hon Bombay HC held as below:
- The Assessing Officer failed to recognize that the assessee had not contributed financially to the property purchase. Moreover, the Principal Chief Commissioner’s sanction for the order was deemed questionable.
- In the circumstances, we hereby quash and set aside the order dated 31st March 2023 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act, because in our opinion, it is not a fit case for reopening the assessment in the case of Petitioner.
The copy of the order is as under:
