IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.1793 of 2011 Date of decision: 31.01.2011 Inder Kumar Singla. -----Petitioner. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kurukshetra. -----Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. G.S. Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order of initiating reassessment, rejecting the objections of the petitioner. 2. Reassessment was sought to be initiated on the allegation that during the assessment year 2007-08, it was found that the petitioner purchased land by investing money in different names from whom power of attorney was obtained and the said land was later sold to various purchasers. The persons shown as purchasers disowned the purchase. After notice to the petitioner and considering the objections filed by him, the impugned order has been passed. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. C.W.P. No.1793 of 2011 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initiation of reassessment proceedings was based on mere change of opinion and the reasons for proposed reassessment are non-existent. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. 6. The basis for reassessment is not mere change of opinion but the material indicated in the impugned order. As regards sufficiency of reasons, we find that only explanation furnished by the petitioner is that the petitioner did not purchase the property benami but on behalf of ostensible purchasers and with their funds. However, from the objections filed against proposed reassessment, there was nothing to rebut the allegation that the ostensible purchasers did not have the requisite funds. Even the vendors did not support the version of the petitioner. Though it has been mentioned in the objections of the ostensible purchasers that they had property having some value, there is nothing to show that they had the requisite funds. We cannot accept the submission that once they had the property it should be presumed that they had the funds. Allegation of lack of means included lack of availability of funds and in absence of same being shown, the reasons for proposed reassessment cannot be held to be non-existent. The impugned order cannot, thus, be held to be without jurisdiction. Needless to say that the petitioner will be at liberty to take all the pleas on merits about taxability of 2 C.W.P. No.1793 of 2011 the alleged escapement of income before the statutory authorities in accordance with law. 7. The petition is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 31, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3