Reassessment Justified When Source of Investment, Including Contribution from Mother, Remains Doubtful

Issue: Whether a reassessment notice is justified when an assessee fails to file an income tax return and, upon inquiry regarding an unexplained investment in immovable property, claims a part of the investment was made by a family member (mother), but the source of funds in the family member’s hands is also doubted by the tax authorities.

Facts:

For the assessment year 2016-17, the assessee did not file his income tax return.
Information was received indicating that the assessee had made unexplained investments in the purchase of immovable property.
Based on this information, a reopening notice (presumably under the new reassessment regime, given the reference to Section 148A) was issued to the assessee.
In response, the assessee contended that a portion of the investment in the property was made by his mother. Therefore, he argued that he was only responsible for explaining the source of funds he personally contributed, not the amount contributed by his mother.
However, the tax authority (Assessing Officer/relevant authority) doubted the source of funds available with the assessee’s mother.

Decision: The impugned reopening notice issued against the assessee was justified. The court held that since the assessee’s claim that a part of the source of funds for the property purchase was provided by his mother was itself under doubt, the reopening was valid. The decision was in favor of the revenue (tax department).

Key Takeaways:

Initial Failure to File Return: The assessee’s failure to file an income tax return, coupled with information about an unexplained investment, provides a strong basis for the initiation of reassessment proceedings.
Burden of Proof for Unexplained Investments (Section 69): Under Section 69 (Unexplained Investments), if an assessee is found to have made investments not recorded in their books of account, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the funds, or the explanation offered is not satisfactory, the value of the investment may be deemed as income.
Explaining Third-Party Contributions: When an assessee claims that a portion of an investment came from a third party (even a close relative like a mother), the onus shifts to the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the source of funds in the hands of that third party. Simply stating that the money came from a relative is insufficient.
Doubt on Mother’s Source Justifies Scrutiny: If the tax authority has reasonable grounds to doubt the source of funds provided by the mother, it indicates that the entire investment (including the part attributed to the mother) remains “unexplained” from the perspective of the assessee’s family unit or financial nexus, warranting further investigation through reassessment.
Justification for Reopening: The existence of concrete information about an unexplained investment, coupled with an unsatisfactory or doubtful explanation from the assessee (even if involving a third party’s funds), provides the necessary “reason to believe” for the AO to reopen the assessment.

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

Prakash Kumar Chandnani

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.
and BHUWAN GOYAL, J.

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 42 of 2025

MARCH 7, 2025

Siddharth Ranka, Rohan Chatter and Ms. Apeksha Bapna, for the Petitioner.

ORDER

1. Heard on admission.

2. Instant petition is directed against the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 148A(d) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961’).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that in the first round of litigation, this Court had interfered with the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961, as reply of the petitioner was not considered. Further submission is that when the matter was again placed for consideration along with the reply, there was no proper consideration of reply by the petitioner.

3.1 Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though return for the relevant Assessment Year 2016-17 was not filed, the petitioner duly explained the payment towards investment. He would submit that as against the notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act of 1961 that the source of fund transaction of Rs.87,44,278/-remained unexplained, sufficient and proper explanation was offered with regard to various transactions including transaction of purchase of immovable property. It was stated by the petitioner that the purchase was made not only by the petitioner, but his mother also and, therefore, only to the extent of the investment made by the petitioner, the amount was required to be considered and he was not required to explain the remaining amount which according to the petitioner, was contributed by his mother towards purchase of immovable property. It is argued that this aspect was not properly examined by the authority while considering petitioner’s reply and the impugned order came to be passed which is patently illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-assessee did not file any return of income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 but on the basis of certain information relating to transactions amounting to Rs.87,44,278/-, notices were issued to the petitioner seeking to reopen the assessment proceedings.

5. Earlier an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961 was passed without considering reply of the petitioner. That order was assailed before this Court successfully. Vide order dated 07.10.2024, this Court set aside the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act of 1961 on consideration that reply was not considered. The department was given liberty to consider the reply filed by the petitioner on 17.03.2023 and take appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law.

6. The reply of the petitioner was thereafter, considered by the authority which led to passing of the impugned order.

7. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had duly explained all the transactions and, therefore, it was not a case of reopening of assessment is essentially based on determination and consideration of various factual aspects of the matter pertaining to various transactions including a transaction of purchase of the property.

8. The petitioner’s contention is that he had duly explained by submitting that a part of the investment towards purchase of the property was made by petitioner’s mother, was considered by the authority in the following terms:-

“Further, the assessee was required to explain complete purchase source of the property concerned either held by itself wholly or with another person(s). In his reply, the assessee has claimed that he purchased property alongwith his mother (Mrs. Shanta Chandru Chandnani). However, he did not produce copy of bank statement maintained by his mother to explain and justify the transaction and source thereof. Even, there is nothing mentioned in purchase deed which suggest that both persons having equal ownership on the property concerned. The assessee did not explain and justify this fact. Accordingly, in absence of documentary evidence with regard to payment source as well as explanation on the part of the assessee itself, it cannot be ascertained that the remaining payment of Rs.29,00,000/- (being 50% share of the assessee’s mother) was made by the joint purchase i.e. assessee’s mother. Considering the facts as discussed above, the property transaction of Rs.58,00,000/-remains unexplained which requires further examination/verification.”

9. The above consideration would show that reply of the petitioner was considered and upon consideration of their reply, the authority has drawn an inference that the matter requires consideration as the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found acceptable at that stage. In sum and substance, the petitioner’s case that a part of source of fund towards purchase of property was provided by the mother itself is under doubt. The order shows that the authority doubted the source of fund available in the hands of the mother.

10. The purpose and object of proceedings under Section 148A of the Act of 1961 is not to make assessment but to reopen assessment upon fulfillment of certain conditions which have been incorporated in the provisions contained therein. The exercise which is required to be undertaken at this stage is limited and cannot be equated with a deeper exercise required to be undertaken towards assessment in assessment proceedings.

11. In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as is well-settled, the Writ Court will not assume the role of Appellate Authority to sit over a finding of fact even if it suffers from a mere error of fact. The consideration would be whether the order is against the provisions of law or violates the principles of natural justice or is so patently outrageous and arbitrary, that interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be warranted. We need not burden our decision with the authorities in support of settled proposition of law that in writ proceedings, it is not the decision itself but the decision making process which falls for scrutiny. In the present case, a detailed order has been passed by the authority and for the limited purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to whether a case of reopening assessment is made out or not, material on record was examined.

12. There is no violation of the principles of natural justice. It is not even a case where the order has been passed without jurisdiction by the authority who is not competent. There is no case of violation of any statutory provisions, as such. Applicability of various provisions of the Act would essentially depend upon conclusion of facts on the basis of the materials placed on record. The applicability of provisions contained in Section 149 of the Act of 1961 will depend upon assessment and finding that may have been recorded by the Assessment Authority during the assessment. This deeper examination would be required to be done by the Assessing Officer and not by the Writ Court. Therefore, in our opinion, no case is made out for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We leave the petitioner to submit all explanations which have been given before this Court before the Assessing Officer to satisfy his case that it does not require any addition of income chargeable to tax.

13. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Abdul Majeed v. Income Tax Officer in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7853/2022. That was a case on its own facts, distinguishable from the present case. In that case, on consideration of facts and that there was absolutely no material on record to support the conclusion, the Court interfered with the decision. The same is not here and this case turns on different fact situation.

14. The instant writ petition is dismissed, accordingly.