Parallel reassessment after section 153C proceedings is impermissible, and the section 69C addition challenge failed.

Where the Assessing Officer has already assumed jurisdiction under section 153C and proceeded for the relevant assessment years, later recourse to sections 147/148 is impermissible because the Act does not contemplate parallel assessment proceedings; the reassessment is therefore invalid. On the deletion of the addition under section 69C, the challenge failed because the cited High Court decision was treated as not having clear finality, and the Revenue's reliance on it was considered misconceived. Since the reassessment itself was held bad in law, the merits of the addition became academic and were not separately adjudicated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under sections 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are valid where the Assessing Officer had earlier assumed jurisdiction and proceeded under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether the deletion of addition of Rs. 3.5 crore (made u/s 69C) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is unsustainable on the ground that the deletion contradicted the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court (Maharaji Education Trust) and related authorities.

Issue (i): Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under sections 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are valid where the Assessing Officer had earlier assumed jurisdiction and proceeded under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The Tribunal examined the statutory scheme, the non obstante clause in section 153C and the ratio of the Delhi High Court in Navin Kumar Gupta. The Tribunal noted that once the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction under section 153C and proceeds to make assessment/reassessment for the relevant years, the Act does not contemplate parallel proceedings and recourse to section 147/148 thereafter is impermissible. The Tribunal applied paras 58-59 of the cited High Court decision and found that the Assessing Officer had exercised jurisdiction under section 153C earlier; consequently initiating proceedings under section 147/148 amounted to parallel proceedings.

Conclusion: The initiation of reassessment under sections 147/148 after having assumed jurisdiction under section 153C is invalid and therefore the reassessment proceedings under sections 147/148 are held bad in law (in favour of assessee).

Issue (ii): Whether the deletion of addition of Rs. 3.5 crore (u/s 69C) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is unsustainable because it allegedly ignored the jurisdictional High Court judgment (Maharaji Education Trust).

Analysis: The Tribunal considered the departmental contention based on the High Court judgment and noted that the High Court order relied upon had been the subject-matter of proceedings before the Supreme Court where review/related proceedings were pending, so it was not clear whether the High Court judgment had attained finality. On that basis the Tribunal found the Revenue's reliance on that High Court judgment to be misconceived. Further, since the assumption of jurisdiction under sections 147/148 was held impermissible, the question of the merits of deletion of the addition became academic and was not adjudicated.

Conclusion: The challenge to the deletion of the addition based on the cited High Court judgment is dismissed (in favour of assessee); the Tribunal confirmed the deletion on the ground that the Revenue's reliance was misconceived and the reassessment was invalid.

Final Conclusion: The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 3.5 crore is upheld; the reassessment proceedings initiated under sections 147/148 are invalid in the facts of this case.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Assessing Officer has assumed jurisdiction under section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and proceeded to make assessment/reassessment for the relevant years, recourse to sections 147/148 thereafter is impermissible because the Act does not permit parallel assessment proceedings.

---