The reasons recorded rest entirely on what came back from letters the officer had no power to write. Does the assessment survive?
The Agra Bench held it does not. It found it undisputed that the enquiry letters were not authorised under any provision of the Act, adopted the reasoning in Amrik Singh, held that the reasons recorded were no reasons in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction, and quashed the assessment orders as void ab initio.
Decided by the ITAT (Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member and Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member) on 2019-03-22, reported as ITA Nos. 332/Agra/2018 and 333/Agra/2018. It bears on section 133(6), section 147, section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Reassessment & Reopening and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters.
This is the strongest statement of the consequence: not that the information is inadmissible, but that the jurisdiction to reassess was never validly assumed. It is the order to lead with where the whole reopening rests on a pre-proceeding enquiry.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Enquiry letters dated 26 April 2011 and 3 September 2015 were issued to or about the assessee. The reassessment was then initiated and assessment orders were passed on 19 December 2016. The assessee challenged the assumption of jurisdiction on the ground that the enquiry letters had no statutory foundation and that the reasons recorded rested on what those letters produced.
Both appeals were allowed. The Tribunal recorded that it was undisputed that the enquiry letters dated 26 April 2011 and 3 September 2015 were not authorised under any provision of the Act (para 19). It held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are no reasons in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction in this case (para 29), and quashed the assessment orders dated 19 December 2016 as void ab initio (para 30), the additions on merits becoming academic.
The Bench took the reasoning in Amrik Singh as its starting point: where the officer is below the prescribed rank and no proceeding is pending, the second proviso to s.133(6) makes the prior approval of the Director or Commissioner a condition of the power, and an enquiry made without it is outside the statute. It then carried that into the reopening. If the letters that produced the material were unauthorised, the material cannot support the formation of belief, and reasons resting on it are not reasons in law. The jurisdiction under s.147 therefore never arose, and the orders made in exercise of it were a nullity rather than merely erroneous.
the reasons recorded by the Assessing officer, are no reasons in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction in this case
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppThe Agra Bench held it does not. It found it undisputed that the enquiry letters were not authorised under any provision of the Act, adopted the reasoning in Amrik Singh, held that the reasons recorded were no reasons in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction, and quashed the assessment orders as void ab initio. This was decided by the ITAT (Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member and Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member) and bears on section 133(6), section 147, section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA Nos. 332/Agra/2018 and 333/Agra/2018. This is the strongest statement of the consequence: not that the information is inadmissible, but that the jurisdiction to reassess was never validly assumed. It is the order to lead with where the whole reopening rests on a pre-proceeding enquiry. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Trace every item in the reasons recorded back to its source; the argument works only if the reasons rest on the unauthorised enquiry.
Enquiry letters dated 26 April 2011 and 3 September 2015 were issued to or about the assessee. The reassessment was then initiated and assessment orders were passed on 19 December 2016. The assessee challenged the assumption of jurisdiction on the ground that the enquiry letters had no statutory foundation and that the reasons recorded rested on what those letters produced. The matter was decided on 2019-03-22 by the ITAT (Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member and Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. Both appeals were allowed. The Tribunal recorded that it was undisputed that the enquiry letters dated 26 April 2011 and 3 September 2015 were not authorised under any provision of the Act (para 19). It held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are no reasons in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction in this case (para 29), and quashed the assessment orders dated 19 December 2016 as void ab initio (para 30), the additions on merits becoming academic.
The Bench took the reasoning in Amrik Singh as its starting point: where the officer is below the prescribed rank and no proceeding is pending, the second proviso to s.133(6) makes the prior approval of the Director or Commissioner a condition of the power, and an enquiry made without it is outside the statute. It then carried that into the reopening. If the letters that produced the material were unauthorised, the material cannot support the formation of belief, and reasons resting on it are not reasons in law. The jurisdiction under s.147 therefore never arose, and the orders made in exercise of it were a nullity rather than merely erroneous. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "the reasons recorded by the Assessing officer, are no reasons in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction in this case" The decision followed or applied Amrik Singh v ITO (ITAT Amritsar, decided 11 May 2016) - reasoning adopted.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2019-03-22 and is reported as ITA Nos. 332/Agra/2018 and 333/Agra/2018. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 133(6), section 147, section 148, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. Both appeals were allowed. The Tribunal recorded that it was undisputed that the enquiry letters dated 26 April 2011 and 3 September 2015 were not authorised under any provision of the Act (para 19). It held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are no reasons in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction in this case (para 29), and quashed the assessment orders dated 19 December 2016 as void ab initio (para 30), the additions on merits becoming academic. It arises in Reassessment & Reopening and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters, on section 133(6), section 147, section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member and Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Get the department to identify the provision under which the enquiry letter was issued - here the absence of any such provision was treated as undisputed. Frame the relief as the assessment being void ab initio, not merely as the material being unusable. Take the ground at the earliest stage; it is a jurisdictional ground and does not depend on the merits of the additions.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. No decision applying, affirming, doubting or overruling this order was located. A companion appeal, Raj Singh v ITO-3(3), Mathura, was decided by the same Bench on the same date. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The Tribunal's finding is that the letters were 'not authorized under any provision of the Act' - which is wider than, and not identical to, a finding that approval under the second proviso to s.133(6) was missing. Read the order before relying on it as a pure proviso case; on the text retrieved the department does not appear to have identified any provision at all for the letters. The connected appeal Raj Singh v ITO, decided the same day, is at indiankanoon /doc/47385104/ and was not separately opened. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Both appeals were allowed. The Tribunal recorded that it was undisputed that the enquiry letters dated 26 April 2011 and 3 September 2015 were not authorised under any provision of the Act (para 19). It held that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer are no reasons in the eye of law for assuming jurisdiction in this case (para 29), and quashed the assessment orders dated 19 December 2016 as void ab initio (para 30), the additions on merits becoming academic.
TaxSphere, “Pushpa v ITO”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/pushpa-v-ito-133-6-unauthorised-enquiry-letters-agra/ (validity last checked 2026-09-17)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
I hold a valid TRC. Can the AO go behind it and reopen my assessment for lack of substance?
The s.148A(d) order ignores the reply I gave to a s.133(6) notice two years ago. If I take it to the High Court, does the reassessment end - or does it start again?
The Tribunal gave me a small percentage addition on disputed purchases. Can the department get the whole disallowance back on appeal?
The officer says my purchases are accommodation entries. Can he add the whole purchase, or only a percentage?
