Unexplained investment additions require proof of the right assessee; reassessment challenge failed for lack of shown non-compliance.

An addition for unexplained investment in travellers cheques was deleted because the revenue failed to establish on cogent material that the assessee, rather than the partnership firm, was the correct person chargeable with the income. The assessee had no independent source of income, the firm's books had been seized, and the authorities did not verify whether the transactions were recorded in the firm's accounts; reliance on a summary search order was insufficient. The reassessment challenge under section 148 failed because the objection was not raised earlier and the assessee did not prove absence of recorded reasons or statutory sanction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the addition of Rs. 1,49,000 as unexplained investment in travellers cheques was sustainable; (ii) Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were void for want of recorded reasons or sanction.

Issue (i): Whether the addition of Rs. 1,49,000 as unexplained investment in travellers cheques was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee consistently stated that he had no independent source of income and that the business belonged to the partnership firm. The record showed that the firm's books had been seized by the Department, that the search disclosure had been accepted in the firm's hands, and that the authorities did not verify the firm's books to examine whether the travellers cheques transactions were recorded there. The addition was made largely by relying on the summary order under section 132(5) and without cogent material establishing that the assessee had made the investment from his personal funds. In such circumstances, the burden to show that the assessee was the correct person assessable for the income was not discharged.

Conclusion: The addition was not justified and was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were void for want of recorded reasons or sanction.

Analysis: The challenge to the reopening was not raised before the lower authorities. In any event, initiation of reassessment does not require disclosure of reasons to the assessee at the stage of notice, and the law permits a presumption that official acts are regularly performed unless rebutted. The assessee did not establish non-compliance with the statutory requirement of sanction.

Conclusion: The challenge to the reassessment notice failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the substantive addition could not be sustained, although the objection to the reassessment notice was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: An addition for unexplained investment cannot be sustained unless the taxing authority establishes, on cogent material, that the assessee was the correct person chargeable with the income; summary findings under search provisions do not substitute for a regular assessment on proof.

---