Tribunal affirms AAC's decision on assessment cancellation, dismisses appeal as infructuous.

The Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal, affirming the current AAC's decision that the assessment had been canceled by the ITO's reopening, rendering the appeal infructuous. The Tribunal determined that the actions of the previous and current AAC were justified, with the current AAC's decision being administrative and not warranting legal intervention. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed, with the Tribunal finding no legal grounds to interfere with the AAC's decision.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT BOMBAY-D on 28-10-1983.
2. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal in light of the previous annulment of the assessment by a different AAC.
3. Interpretation of the actions taken by the current AAC in relation to the assessment and subsequent appeal.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved an ex parte assessment under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was later reopened by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under section 146. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) initially annulled the assessment order as being time-barred. However, due to a change in AAC, the new officer dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the assessment had already been reopened by the ITO. The assessee challenged this decision, arguing that the new AAC's order was without jurisdiction. The counsel for the assessee pointed out a subsequent letter by the new AAC suggesting that her order should be treated as one under section 154 of the Act. The counsel contended that the assessment was time-barred, and the new AAC's order effectively reinstated a position that was legally incorrect.

2. The Tribunal considered the sequence of events and the legal implications of the actions taken by the previous AAC and the current AAC. The Tribunal noted that the original assessment ceased to exist after the ITO reopened it under section 146. The Tribunal found that the previous AAC's order annulling the assessment was no longer valid due to the subsequent reopening by the ITO. The Tribunal determined that the current AAC's decision to dismiss the appeal was justified as the assessment order had already been canceled by the ITO, rendering the appeal infructuous. The Tribunal clarified that the current AAC's action was administrative in nature and did not require further legal intervention. The Tribunal also addressed the letter from the new AAC, stating that it did not alter the case's circumstances or the validity of the administrative action taken. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the assessee's appeal.

3. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, affirming the decision of the current AAC to strike off the appeal as infructuous. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessment order had been effectively canceled by the ITO's reopening, and the subsequent actions by the AAC were deemed appropriate and within the scope of administrative discretion. The Tribunal found no legal basis to interfere with the AAC's decision and upheld the dismissal of the appeal.

---