Suresh Vitthalrao Barge Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Reassessment Quashed for Non-Furnishing of Recorded Reasons: Failure to Supply Reasons vitiates Jurisdiction
The Pune Bench of the ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal for AY 2015-16 and quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/148, holding that the Assessing Officer failed to furnish the recorded reasons for reopening despite a specific request by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had expressly sought copies of the reasons recorded and the approval u/s 151 during e-proceedings, yet the AO admittedly did not supply them—an admission borne out by the remand report.
Relying on binding jurisdictional precedent, including Bombay High Court in Trend Electronics, the ITAT reiterated that recording of reasons and furnishing them upon request is a jurisdictional requirement. Non-compliance deprives the assessee of the statutory right to file objections and mandates that the reassessment be declared void ab initio. Since the foundational jurisdiction failed, the Tribunal held that all consequential additions became infructuous and declined to adjudicate them. Accordingly, the reassessment was set aside in entirety and the appeal was allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated 18/03/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which is arising out of order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 26.12.2018 by the ITO, Ward-1(2), Beed, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.
