2026 (8) TMI 612

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....request letter dated 21st April, 2017 is extracted as follows: 3. Thereafter, the assessee had written another letter to the Department dated 1st May, 2017 wherein reference of the earlier letter dated 21st April, 2017 was mentioned. In this way, twice it was requested to the Department by the assessee that reasons for reopening were not provided to the assessee which may be provided so that the assessee can purposefully represent his case on merits before the A.O. However, reasons for reopening was never shared with the assessee. The Ld. Counsel demonstrates the aforesaid by furnishing copies of order sheet entry in the case of the assessee wherein, there is no whisper regarding providing copy of reasons recorded for reopening to the assessee. 4. In this regard, the Department was provided an opportunity to furnish a report from the A.O and the said report was brought on record by the Ld. Sr. DR which is extracted as follows: 5. It is crystal clear from the report of the Department that "reasons to believe" for reopening of the case was never provided to the assessee. That at Para 2 of the extracted report, the A.O writes "Regarding first ground of appeal of the assessee,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... us there has been a complete violation of the applicable principle of law by the A.O, who had despite specific request by the assessee failed to communicate the "reasons to believe" that had formed the very basis for reopening of his assessment u/s.147 of the Act, therefore, the very assumption of jurisdiction by him and framing of the impugned assessment cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Agarwal Metals and Alloys Vs. ACIT & Ors. (2012) 346 ITR 64 (Bom.). In its aforesaid order, the Hon'ble High Court had after taking cognizance of the fact that the A.O in the case before them had failed to communicate the "reasons to believe" on the basis of which the case of the assessee was reopened, quashed the assessment by treating the same as having been passed in a brazen violation of the governing principles of law. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court are culled out as under: "4. On these admitted facts, it is evident that there has been a complete violation of the applicable principles of law by the Assessing Officer. The ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l had relied on the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. [supra) wherein it was held and observed that the assessee after obtaining a copy of the "reasons to believe" is vested with a statutory right to file his objections before the A.O. Thereafter, the A.O is required to adjudicate the matter through a speaking order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had mandated that the A.O must provide copy of reasons for reopening when requested, reinforcing the importance of such reasons. 8. Reverting to the facts of the present case, admittedly, as demonstrated by the Ld. Counsel, request has been made by the assessee to the A.O twice to furnish reasons to believe for reopening of the case. However, there was no compliance from the Department and even in the report that has been submitted by the Ld. Sr. DR, it is amply clear that the Department has never supplied reasons to believe to the assessee which is against the dictate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra). Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Agarwal Metals and Alloys Vs. ACIT & Ors. (2012) 346 ITR 64 (Bom.) has held where the A.O failed to communicate the "reason....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ar, Raipur 2 1 APR 2017 Assessee Chandra Kumar Dodwani 34/53 Sant Kanwarram Chowk Street NO 3 Katora Talab Raipur AERPD1593G Reference Your Notice u/s 148 dated 30/03/2017 No ITBA/ AST/S/148/2016-17/1003739962(1) Assessment year 2010-2011 Madam, The above named asseessee is in receipt of notice under section 148 as cited above. the assessee requests to issue the reasons recorderd for reopening of the case for reassessment for the year under consideration. Submitted Raipur 21/04/2017 Counsel for the Assessee- Wahid Shariff Advocate Counsel ta Assore आयकर अधिकारी3(2), रायपुर लायलय में प्राप्त हुआ। 12.1 APR 2017 हस्ताक्षर - Document 2 Government of India Ministry of Finance: Deptt. of Revenue Office of the Income Tax Officer-3(1) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Email Id :- [email protected] F.No. ITO-3(1)/RPR/ITAT/2026-27/ Date :- 19.05.2026 To, The Addl. Commiss....