Tribunal Invalidates Second Assessment Order for Same Assessee & Year

The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal challenging the second assessment order by A.O. ward 32(2) for the A.Y. 2010-2011. The Tribunal held that two assessments by different Assessing Officers for the same Assessee and assessment year were impermissible, rendering the second assessment order invalid. The decision underscored the legal principle that there cannot be two different assessment orders for the same assessee for the same assessment year. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the second assessment order, ruling in favor of the Assessee.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment order passed by A.O.
2. Jurisdiction of A.O. ward 32(2) over the matter.
3. Service of notice u/s 148 by AO ward 32(2).
4. Adjudication of additional grounds of appeal.
5. Treatment of loan as unexplained cash credit.
6. Addition of sum in assessable income on purchase of car.
7. Consideration of loan confirmation.
8. Validity of assessment order passed by AO ward 32(2).
9. Enhancement of assessable income.
10. Two assessments of appellant for the same year.

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenged the Order dated 15.01.2019 of the Ld. CIT(A)-11, New Delhi, regarding the A.Y. 2010-2011. The Assessee contended that the assessment order passed by the A.O. was invalid, questioning the jurisdiction of A.O. ward 32(2) over the matter, and disputing the service of notice u/s 148 by the same. Additionally, the Assessee raised concerns about the non-adjudication of additional grounds of appeal and the treatment of a loan as unexplained cash credit.

2. The facts revealed that the Assessee had deposited cash in the bank account and purchased a car during the relevant financial year. The A.O. initiated reassessment proceedings due to non-disclosure of the source of funds for the car purchase and cash deposits. The Assessee argued that the cash deposit was from the sale of agricultural land and the car purchase was funded by a loan from Mrs. Bhagwati Devi. However, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the A.O.'s decision, leading to the Assessee's appeal before the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal noted the peculiar situation of two different Assessing Officers reopening the assessment for the same Assessee for the same assessment year. The A.O. had already completed an assessment accepting the returned income, making it impermissible for another A.O. to reopen the assessment on the same issue. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the second assessment order by A.O. ward 32(2) was not valid, as there cannot be two different assessment orders for the same assessee for the same assessment year.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, emphasizing that the second assessment order did not stand in the eyes of the law. The decision highlighted the principle that there cannot be two different assessment orders for the same assessee for the same assessment year by two different A.Os. The Tribunal's ruling favored the Assessee based on the legal principles and the facts of the case, ultimately setting aside the second assessment order.

---