Department's Appeal Dismissed - Assessment Order Cancellation Upheld

The appeal by the Department challenging the cancellation of the assessment order under section 153C/143(3) for the A.Y. 2005-2006 was dismissed. The cancellation was upheld as there was no justification for parallel proceedings resulting in the same loss assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) deemed the assessment order under appeal as infructuous, emphasizing the principle against multiple proceedings for the same assessee, assessment year, and matters in issue. The departmental appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Ld. CIT(A).

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to the cancellation of assessment order under section 153C/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appeal by the Revenue was directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, New Delhi, challenging the cancellation of the Order passed by the A.O. under section 153C/143(3) for the A.Y. 2005-2006. The assessee had originally filed its return of income showing a total loss, which was audited and assessed. Subsequently, a search in related cases led to proceedings under section 153C/153A against the assessee for the same assessment year. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the same loss amount had been assessed in the original assessment under section 143(3) and again under section 153C/153A in the impugned order, deeming the assessment order under appeal as infructuous and cancelling it based on the principle that there cannot be two proceedings for the same assessee, assessment year, and matters in issue. The Ld. CIT(A) cited a relevant case supporting this view. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Learned Representatives of both parties presented their arguments, with the Assessee's Counsel highlighting the duplication of the loss assessment in different appeals. The Revenue's Counsel relied on the A.O.'s order. Upon deliberation, it was concluded that since the same loss amount had been assessed in the original order under section 143(3), the subsequent proceedings under section 153C/153A should have been terminated by the A.O. after verifying the seized material. The cancellation of the assessment order by the Ld. CIT(A) was upheld, emphasizing that there was no justification for parallel proceedings resulting in the same loss assessment. Consequently, the departmental appeal was dismissed, confirming the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision.

In conclusion, the appeal by the Department challenging the cancellation of the assessment order under section 153C/143(3) for the A.Y. 2005-2006 was dismissed.

---