RAMAKANT U SHARMA HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 32(5), NEW DELHI

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the correctness of the order dated 14.02.2019 passed by CIT(A)-11, New Delhi, pertaining to A.Y.2010-11 assessment year is assailed on various grounds of appeal. These reads as under :-

5.1 For ready reference the relevant extract from page-4 of the impugned order was relied upon to emphasize the number of times the issue had been agitated. The submissions of the assessee extracted in the order, it was argued, would show that the assessee had also requested the First Appellate Authority to provide the reasons recorded. Despite repeated request to the Assessing Officer agitated before the CIT(A) also, the reasons till date have not been provided for reopening the assessment. Infact, it was argued that the AO had never recorded the reasons for reopening. It is seen that the said objection though extracted in the order has not been addressed by the First Appellate Authority. It has been argued that number of opportunities have been given by the Coordinate Benches right from 25.10.2021 onwards. The facts on record and the reply of the AO, it was argued, shows that reasons for reopening in fact were never recorded.

Accordingly, considering the reply made available by the Revenue, it was his prayer that the orders be quashed.

7. I have heard submissions and gone through material available on record. Considering the departmental reply made available read alongwith number of opportunities provided to the Revenue to substantiate what reasons were recorded and whether it was made available to the assessee, I find that in the face of the reply available, the reasons recorded are not available with the Revenue. Hence, in the light of the specific submissions extracted in the order alleging non providing of the reasons for reopening and lack of filing the same before the ITAT, the absence of finding on the issues by the First Appellate Authority gives rise to concerns that possibly reasons for re- opening were never recorded. Accordingly, I am convinced that the jurisdiction has been assumed in the peculiar facts of the present case is without following the mandatory procedures. Without demonstrating the availability of the reasons recorded for the reopening on record, the assumption of jurisdiction and exercise of power in violation of the settled legal jurisprudence cannot be sustained. The orders are accordingly quashed. Said announcement was made in the Open Court at the time of hearing.

Said order was pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2022.