Case Law Details
Om Prakash Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Reasons First, Notice Later—ITAT Pulls Plug on Illegal Reopening- 148 Issued Before Satisfaction? Reassessment Non Est
Delhi ITAT ‘SMC’ Bench in The Great Getsby Club of India Vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), New Delhi [ITA No. 7144/Del/2025, AY 2014-15, order dated 16.12.2025] allowed Assessee’s appeal and quashed reassessment proceedings where notice u/s 148 was issued prior to recording reasons and obtaining statutory approval. Tribunal noted that notice u/s 148 was issued on 19.01.2016, whereas reasons were recorded and approval of JCIT was obtained only on 17.03.2016. CIT(A) sought remand report but failed to adjudicate this jurisdictional defect. Tribunal held that on the date of issuance of notice, AO lacked subjective satisfaction, rendering the reopening without jurisdiction. Relying on PCIT Vs. Tata Sons Ltd. (SC), Tribunal reiterated that reasons must precede issuance of notice and reopening cannot be done in a casual or routine manner. Consequently, notice u/s 148 and all subsequent proceedings were held vitiated and quashed
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 13.10.2025, for the Assessment Year 2022-23.
2. Shri Pancham Sethi, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business ofwholesale trading of timber. The assessee had purchased timber from various parties including one Sadhu Ram Jai Prakash of Gujarat. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice u/s.133(6) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to various parties, some of the parties confirmed and furnished the requisite details, Sadhu Ram Jai Prakash replied to the said notice confirming the purchase of timber by the assessee but ostensibly failed to furnish the requisite documents. Although, the assessee had furnished all the requisite documents including the details of transportation, copy E-way bill, copy of consignment note, etc. The AO disallowed the purchases from Sadhu Ram Jai Prakash only for the reason that the said party had not furnished the details of transportation, copy of E-way bill, copy of consignment note/Bilty receipts from transporter, confirmation of accounts. Aggrieved by the addition, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), but remained unsuccessful.
3. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee had furnished requisite documents before the AO to substantiate that the goods were indeed purchased by the assessee from Sadhu Ram Jai Prakash i.e. the copy of consignment, copy of E-way bill, copy of Form No. 26AS reflecting TCS collected by Sadhu Ram Jai Prakash on sale to the assessee, bank statement of Sadhu Ram Jai Prakash, bank statement of the assessee, confirmation by Sadhu Ram Jai Prakash, purchase register of the assessee, etc. The ld. AR of the assessee further pointed that even E-way bills confirmation from the GSTIN Portal were also provided to the AO along with invoices and Bilty receipts. Still, the AO disallowed the purchases made by assessee from Sadhu Ram Jai Prakash.
4. Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar representing the department strongly supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.
5. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The solitary issue in the present appeal is disallowance of purchases made by assessee from Sadhu Ram Jai Prakash. The reason for disallowance made by the AO is that the seller has failed to furnish the proof of transportation of goods purchase by the assessee i.e. E-way bills, Bilty receipts, etc. A perusal of the documents placed on record by the assessee in the form of paper book clearly shows that the assessee had furnished tax invoices which bears vehicle number and e-Way Bills, the said invoices and e-Way Bills are at pages 17 to 63 of the paper book. The assessee has also furnished copies of e-Way Bills of purchases from Sadhu Ram Jai Prakash confirmed from GSTIN Portal, the said confirmations are at pages 64 to 83 of the paper book. Thus, in light of the documents furnished by the assessee, I see no reason to disallow the purchases made by the assessee from Sadhu Ram Jai Prakash.
6. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 16th day of December, 2025.
Author Bio
