Appeal allowed for statistical purposes, remanded for re-adjudication

The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, with the matter remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication on the merits of the case. The Tribunal emphasized that the original assessment order does not get wiped out by the reassessment order, and the CIT(Appeals) should have confined his adjudication to the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer (AO) to reassess income under Section 147.
3. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue.
4. Merits of the additions/disallowances made by the AO.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of the Assessment Order under Section 143(3)
The revenue challenged the order of the CIT(Appeals) which held that the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) dated 29.11.2007 was no longer in existence after the reassessment order under Section 147 dated 30.12.2008. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal in limine based on the belief that the original assessment order was effaced by the reassessment order. The Tribunal disapproved of this view, citing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works (1992) and CIT Vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. (2007), which clarified that reassessment does not wipe out the original assessment. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the AO to Reassess Income under Section 147
The Tribunal noted that the AO had framed the reassessment without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) within the prescribed period. This lack of jurisdiction rendered the reassessment order invalid. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order dated 30.12.2008, stating that the CIT(Appeals) should have confined his adjudication to the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO for framing the reassessment.

Issue 3: Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal by the Revenue
The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(Appeals) dated 22.01.2009 with a delay of 3966 days. The Tribunal considered the reasons for the delay, which included the AO's bona fide belief that the original assessment order was effaced by the reassessment order, supported by certain Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal condoned the delay, subject to the imposition of a cost of Rs. 20,000 on the department, to be paid to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund.

Issue 4: Merits of the Additions/Disallowances Made by the AO
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals) had not adjudicated on the merits of the additions/disallowances due to the belief that the original assessment order was non-existent. The Tribunal directed the CIT(Appeals) to re-adjudicate the appeal on merits, providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the payment of costs. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for re-adjudication on the merits of the case. The Tribunal emphasized that the original assessment order does not get wiped out by the reassessment order, and the CIT(Appeals) should have confined his adjudication to the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO.

---