Shantaram Parshuram Patil Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune)
Notices Sent to Defunct Email and Reopening Reasons Withheld: Pune ITAT Restores Reassessment for Fresh Adjudication
In Shantaram Parshuram Patil v. DCIT, the assessee challenged the reassessment completed ex parte under sections 147, 144 and 144B for AY 2020-21. The Assessing Officer treated all credits appearing in the assessee’s Bank of Maharashtra account as his business turnover.
The assessee contended that all bank credits did not represent business receipts. However, he could not furnish supporting documents because the assessment notices were sent to a defunct email address, different from the email registered on the income-tax portal. It was also contended that the Assessing Officer had not supplied the reasons recorded for reopening.
The Pune ITAT found that there was sufficient cause for the assessee’s non-compliance. Referring to the Bombay High Court decision in Sahebrao Deshmukh Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. ACIT, the Tribunal reiterated that providing the assessee with a copy of the reasons recorded for reopening is mandatory.
Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the assessment and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to furnish the recorded reasons and provide the assessee a proper opportunity to submit documents and explain the bank credits.
List of Cases Discussed / Relied Upon
- Sahebrao Deshmukh Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. ACIT — (2023) 149 taxmann.com 248 (Bombay)
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act’) for AY 2020-21 on 25.02.2026, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 13.02.2025.
Submission of Ld. AR :
2. In this case, the Ld. AR filed paper book containing 23 pages. The Ld. AR vehemently submitted that the Assessing Officer (AO) had issued notices on email id which was defunct. The Ld. AR further submitted that the email id appearing in the Income Tax Portal is different and the notices has been sent by the AO on different email id. The Ld. AR invited our attention to page No. 23 of the paper book which is e-proceedings sheet to demonstrate the same.
2.1 The Ld. AR submitted that therefore the assessee could not file requisite details as called for by the AO. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the request of the assessee.
2.2 The Ld. AR also submitted that the AO has not provided copy of the reasons recorded for re-opening. The Ld. AR requested that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity to file all the details.
Submission of Ld. DR :
3. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A).
Findings and analysis:
4. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. In this case, it is observed that the assessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for AY 2020-21. The assessee had filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act declaring total income at Rs.33,47,730/- for AY 2020-21. Based on the information received by the AO, the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2024. It is observed that the AO in the reassessment order has considered all the credit entries appearing in Bank of Maharashtra Account of the assessee as turnover of the assessee. The assessee pleaded that all the credit entries do not reflect receipts of the assessee. However, it is a fact that the assessee had not filed the documents to substantiate its claim during the assessment proceedings. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee pleaded that the case may be set aside to AO or opportunity may be provided to the assessee to file all the details. It is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) issued three notices and then upheld the assessment order. In this case, the assessee has failed to file details because of the notices being served on the email id which was not in used. It is also submitted by the Ld. AR that the Reasons recorded for re-opening were not provided. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sahebrao Deshmukh Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. ACIT, (2023) 149 taxmann.com 248 (Bombay) has held that it is mandatory to provide copy of reasons recorded for reopening.
5. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that there was sufficient cause for non-compliance. In the interest of justice, we set aside the issue to the AO for de-novo adjudication. The AO shall provide copy of reasons to assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 18th August, 2026
