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.
Buyer Can’t Be Penalised for Seller’s Lapse- E-Way Bills, GST Confirmation & TCS Seal the Deal- Genuine Purchases Don’t Vanish Due to 133(6) Non-Response- Paper Trail Speaks Louder Than Supplier Silence
Delhi ITAT ‘SMC’ Bench in Om Prakash (HUF) Vs. ITO, Ward-3, Rohtak [ITA No. 7186/Del/2025, AY 2022-23, order dated 16.12.2025] allowed Assessee’s appeal and deleted disallowance of timber purchases made from M/s Sadhu Ram Jai Prakash. AO had disallowed purchases solely on ground that the seller failed to furnish transportation documents and confirmations in response to notice u/s 133(6), despite seller having confirmed the transaction. Tribunal noted that Assessee had furnished complete evidences including tax invoices bearing vehicle numbers, e-Way Bills verified from GSTIN portal, bilty/consignment notes, bank statements of both parties, purchase register and Form 26AS reflecting TCS collected by seller on sale to Assessee. Tribunal held that once Assessee proves genuineness of purchases through cogent documentary evidence, disallowance cannot be made merely because supplier did not fully comply with AO’s notice. Accordingly, impugned order was set aside and appeal was allowed
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
