AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1516
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity ?" 2. The findings of the learned Tribunal with regard to quashing of the aforesaid impugned reassessment order is that the reasons recorded by the assessing authority for reopening the assessment were never communicated to the assessee though the same were produced before the learned Tribunal for perusal. The findings of the Tribunal are quoted below for ready reference : "Thus it is clear that vide letter dated December 21, 2011, the assessee has once again reiterated a request for furnishing the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. The assessee has stated that the Assessing Officer has not furnished the reasons recorded for reopening despite earlier request vide letter dated February 10, 2010. It is the case of the Revenue that the reasons were furnished to the asses see on November 4, 2011. The learned Departmental representative has placed reliance on the order sheet, dated November 4, 2011, in the assessment proceedings which reads as under : '4-11-2011 In response to the notice, the applicant's A/R & C. S. Sri V. Ven katanarasimhan appeared and filed the power, the case was dis cussed. The A/R was asked to furnish the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s has not been offered to tax. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act was issued asking the asses see to file the return of income. Shri Ramaiah vide letter dated February 10, 2011, filed in the office on February 11, 2011 has stated that the return filed by him on July 30, 2009, with the Income-tax Officer, Ward 5(2) vide acknowledgment No. 000760 declaring income of Rs. 2,56,922 should be taken as return filed in response to section 148 of the Income-tax Act. Subsequently the assessee filed a letter dated November 22, 2011, wherein he has stated that the return filed under protest on February 11, 2011, declaring an income of Rs. 3,06,922 should be taken as return filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee has also filed a copy of computation of the total income along with the return. That last para of the above remand report states that a copy of rea sons for reopening was duly handed over to the assessee on November 4, 2011 vide order sheet noting. We have already discussed the order sheet dated November 4, 2011 and found that there is nothing in the said proceedings to indicate that the reasons recorded fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vant as far as the jurisdiction issue of the Assessing Officer is concerned to decide the validity of reassessment. Similar view has been taken by the hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Trend Electronics [2015] 379 ITR 456 (Bom) in I. T. A. No. 1867 of 2013 as well as the Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT v. Samcor Glass Ltd. (supra). In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer has failed to furnish the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment despite the repeated requests of the assessee then the reassessment completed without compliance of the mandatory condition of furnishing the reasons recorded is not sustainable and therefore the same is bad in law. Accordingly, we quash the reassessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act." 3. The learned counsel for the Revenue Mr. Sanmathi E. I., relying upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Home Finders Housing Ltd. v. ITO [2018] 404 ITR 611 (Mad) ; [2018] 93 taxmann.com 361 (Mad) has submitted that this was a procedural requirement and any lapse in such compliance cannot resu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contention raised by the learned counsel for the Revenue that in the order sheet dated November 4, 2011, in the reassessment proceedings were duly noted by the authorised representative appearing on behalf of the assessee and therefore, such assessee should be deemed to have been made aware of the reasons for reopening does not impress us. 7. The Tribunal has clearly noted in its order after looking into the record of the case that the reasons which were placed before the learned Tribunal itself only for the first time were never communicated to the assessee during the contemporary period. Mere participation of the assessee or authorized representative in the reassessment proceedings does not amount to the assessee being made aware or known of the reasons for such reopening. The reasons now quoted by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order clearly indicates that they are purportedly detailed reasons and had the assessing authority given the said reasons before hand, the assessee could have raised objections before the assessing authority and the assessee could have rebutted the material on the basis of which the impugned reassessment proceedings were undertaken by the ass....