Yes,  there  is  a  reason  behind  the  "no-soul"  (anatta/anatman)  theory  of  Buddhism.
Selflessness  is  the  major  catalyst  to  salvation  (nibbana/nirvana)  from  the  cycle  of  births  and  deaths  in  both  Hinduism  and  Buddhism.

In  the  case  of  Buddhism,  the  ethics  has  shaped  its  spiritual  psychology  and  consequently  its  soteriology.

The  question  is  how  can  one  be  truly  selfless  if  one  believes  in  a  permanent  self  (soul).

The  Hindus  argue  that  materialistic  egotism  should  be  removed,  but  a  permanent  spiritual  self  would  not  be  in  conflict  with  the  notion  of  selflessness.

Buddhists  beg  to  differ  and  point  out  that  it  would  conflict.  As  long  as  there  is  a  "soul"  one  cannot  but  be  selfish.

Hindus  point  out  that:  "if  so,  what  is  it  then  that  attains  nirvana  (if  there  is  no  soul)?"

Both  religio-philosophical  traditions  have  raised  some  very  good  points.

I  commend  them  both  for  this.