Invalid Second Assessment Order Results in Double Assessment: Tribunal Upholds CIT(A)'s Decision

The Tribunal held that the second assessment order passed by the AO was invalid and void ab initio, as it resulted in double assessment for the same assessment year, contrary to legal principles. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment order passed by the AO under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act after directions from ITAT for de novo assessment.
2. Legality of passing two assessment orders for the same assessment year by the AO.

Issue 1:
The appellant filed her return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2003-04, declaring a total income of Rs. 78,900. Subsequently, a search and seizure action was conducted, leading to the AO issuing a notice u/s.153A and passing an assessment order u/s.144 r.w.s.153A determining the total income at Rs. 14,19,800. The CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO, prompting the appellant to appeal to the ITAT. The ITAT, in its order dated 18.10.2012, set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to frame a de novo assessment. The AO passed an order on 16-09-2013 to give effect to the ITAT's order and issued another assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.254 on 18.02.2014 determining the total income at Rs. 14,18,680. The CIT(A) held the second assessment order as bad in law. The key contention was that passing the second assessment order without proper jurisdiction was impermissible. The appellant relied on the judgment of the High Court in a similar case. The AO, however, supported the second assessment order.

Issue 2:
Upon analyzing the facts, it was evident that the AO had passed two orders: one to give effect to the ITAT's order and the other for assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.254. The appellant argued that the second assessment order was without jurisdiction as it amounted to a substantial review of the earlier order without proper assumption of jurisdiction. The CIT(A) concurred with the appellant's argument, emphasizing that there cannot be two assessments for the same assessment year, as it would lead to double taxation. Relying on legal precedent, the CIT(A) declared the second assessment order as illegal, void, and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the second assessment order passed by the AO was invalid and void ab initio, as it amounted to double assessment for the same assessment year, contravening established legal principles. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

---