Tribunal quashes assessment due to minor daughter's name on notice, Assessing Officer's lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the assessment proceedings as void ab initio due to the invalid notice issued in the name of the minor daughter and the lack of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer. The assessment order and the addition of alleged cash payment were set aside.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proceedings under Section 147 and notice under Section 148.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.
3. Addition of alleged cash payment of Rs. 19,93,560/-.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Proceedings under Section 147 and Notice under Section 148:
The assessee challenged the validity of the notice under Section 148 dated 30.03.2013, which was issued in the name of the minor daughter, Ms. Jyotika Chandhoke, instead of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the notice was issued in the name of the minor daughter and even the reasons recorded for income escaping assessment were in her name. The PAN mentioned was also different from that of the assessee. The Tribunal held that no valid notice was issued in the name of the assessee, rendering the entire proceedings void ab initio. It emphasized that jurisdiction under Section 147 can only be acquired by serving a valid notice in the name of the assessee and recording reasons for income escaping assessment in the assessee's case. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment order passed under Section 147/143(3) based on a notice issued in the name of the minor daughter and a different PAN could not validate the proceedings.

2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer:
The assessee argued that the notice under Section 148 was not issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The Tribunal observed that the notice was issued by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the minor daughter according to her PAN. However, the Tribunal found that the correct procedure under the law should have been to reopen the assessee's case and issue a notice under Section 148 in the name of the assessee, who is the representative assessee under Section 160(ii). The Tribunal highlighted that the Assessing Officer's action showed a lack of application of mind regarding whether the income escaping assessment belonged to the assessee or the minor daughter. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the notice issued by a different Assessing Officer with a different PAN could not validate the proceedings.

3. Addition of Alleged Cash Payment of Rs. 19,93,560/-:
The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 19,93,560/- as alleged cash payment. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the minor daughter had made substantial investment in cash in a property. However, the Tribunal found that the notice and reasons recorded were in the name of the minor daughter, and the assessment was framed in the hands of the assessee without issuing a valid notice to the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the correct course of action should have been to issue a notice under Section 148 to the assessee and tax any undisclosed income of the minor in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the assessment order as void ab initio, and the addition of Rs. 19,93,560/- was not sustained.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the assessment proceedings as void ab initio due to the invalid notice issued in the name of the minor daughter and the lack of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of issuing a valid notice to the correct assessee and recording reasons for income escaping assessment in the assessee's case. The assessment order and the addition of Rs. 19,93,560/- were set aside.

---