Court sets aside order, remands for fresh consideration. Assessing Officer to conduct personal hearing, review documents, re-do assessment.

The court set aside the impugned order dated 04.05.2017, remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer was directed to conduct a personal hearing, review the documents submitted, including the paper book, and re-do the assessment in compliance with the law.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of multiple assessment orders for the same assessment year.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Compliance with the Tribunal's directions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Multiple Assessment Orders:
The petitioner argued that the provisions of the Income Tax Act do not allow for multiple assessment orders for the same assessment year. They contended that the impugned order dated 04.05.2017 is invalid and unsustainable in law. However, the court noted that the petitioner did not challenge the first order dated 22.03.2017, which was in their favor. Consequently, the court did not examine this contention as it became hypothetical due to the petitioner's conduct.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner claimed that the order dated 22.03.2017 was passed without giving them an opportunity of being heard, as the first date of hearing was fixed on 27.03.2017. They further argued that the subsequent order dated 04.05.2017 was also passed without adequate opportunity for them to present their case. The court found that the petitioner did not have an effective opportunity before the respondent prior to the impugned order dated 04.05.2017. The chronology of dates and events indicated that the petitioner did not have adequate opportunity to put forth their submissions, and thus, the principles of natural justice were violated.

3. Compliance with the Tribunal's Directions:
The Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer with specific directions to re-examine certain issues. The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer did not consider the voluminous documents filed before him, particularly the STPI approval and the paper book submitted before the Tribunal. The court observed that the Assessing Officer is bound to follow the Tribunal's directions scrupulously. The Tribunal had directed the Assessing Officer to verify the genuineness of the documents and provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, the Assessing Officer concluded that no further evidence was produced by the petitioner without conducting the required verification. The court found that the Assessing Officer did not adhere to the Tribunal's directions and passed the impugned order without proper verification of the documents.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 04.05.2017, and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer was directed to fix a date for personal hearing, consider the documents filed in the form of a paper book, and re-do the assessment in accordance with law.

---