TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 1145
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rming action of Assessing Officer in initiating reassessment proceedings on the basis of reason recorded u/s.148(2) as reassessment proceedings was invalid, illegal and bad in law. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in ex-parte order Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming action of Assessing Officer in not allowing claim of deduction u/s.54F of Rs.20,62,481/- by not considering written submission filed before him on 02.02.2016 and without considering the facts and circumstances of the case properly and judicially. 4. The appellant craves the right to add, amend or alter any ground or grounds of appeal at the time of hearing." 2. Succinctly stated, information was received by the Assessing Officer from the DIT(Intelligence), Bhopal regarding properties sold by the assessee during the year under consideration. As per the information received there were differences in the sale consideration and the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority for registering the aforesaid sale transactions. On verifications by the AO, it transpired that the assessee had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration, i.e, AY ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vide his letter dated 04.02.2022 applied with the AO for a copy of the "reasons to believe" which, however, had not been made available to him till date. Backed by the aforesaid facts, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that as the assessee's case had been reopened without recording of the "reasons to believe", therefore, the jurisdiction assumed by the Assessing Officer was devoid and bereft of any force of law. In order to buttress his aforesaid claim the Ld. AR had taken us through the relevant extract of the "order sheet" of the Assessing Officer wherein, there was no whisper of recording of any "reasons to believe" prior to issuance of the notice u/s.148 of the Act. On the basis of his aforesaid contentions, it was vehemently submitted by the Ld. AR that as the Assessing Officer had blatantly failed to comply with the statutory obligation of recording of the "reasons to believe" prior to issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act, therefore, the very assumption of jurisdiction by him for reopening the case of the assessee and framing the consequential assessment vide his impugned order passed u/s.148/143(3) of the Act, dated 30.04.2014 was not sustainable in the eyes of law and was li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2022 called upon the Addl. CIT Range- Raipur/ITO-Jagdalpur to provide clarification as regards the claim of the assessee that the "reasons to believe" on the basis of which the case of the assessee was reopened u/s.148 were never supplied to him. In reply to the aforesaid letter dated 28.03.2022 (supra), the ITO, Ward-Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh vide his letter dated 29.03.2022 marked as reference F. No. ITO/JDP-ITAT/2021-22, had, inter alia, stated, that the reasons for re-opening were not available on the assessment records. For the sake of clarity the relevant observations of the Assessing Officer in his letter dated 29.03.2022 (supra) are culled out as under: "1. Assessee never raised any objection during assessment as it appears from record. 2. Though no reasons were asked by the assessee for reopening during assessment proceedings, however, a letter has been received by this office on 12.02.2016, probably when assessee went into first appeal or thereafter. 3. Reasons for re-opening are not separately placed on record as evident after going through the folder." (emphasis supplied by us) 8. On a perusal of the aforesaid facts, we are of the conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a condition precedent before assuming jurisdiction by him. Observing, that the satisfaction about escapement of income from assessment to tax before issuance of notice is to be reflected from reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, it was therein held that if the reasons are not recorded, there is no valid assumption of jurisdiction and subsequent proceedings are vitiated. (D) Baldev Singh Giani Vs. CIT (2001) 248 ITR 266 (P & H.) In the aforesaid case, it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court that the requirement of recording of "reasons to believe" enshrined u/s. 148(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was mandatory on the part of the Assessing Officer. Observing, that the assessment record did not contain reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, the Hon'ble High Court held that the notice of reassessment proceedings had to be treated as nullity. 9. On the basis of our aforesaid deliberations, we are of the considered view, that as the Assessing Officer prior to issuance of Notice u/s.148, dated 12.06.2013 had failed to record "reasons to believe", therefore, he had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and framed the impugned assessment vide his order passed u/s.148/143(3) of t....