1990 (3) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en passed under section 144 by another ITO. The assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) over the earlier ex parte order both on the grounds of invalidity of the assessment order as well as on merits. 3. The AAC however did not decide the case on merits but as stated above, held that the first assessment order was invalid on the ground that the regular assessment had been made subsequently. He has stated how the two assessments came to be made. The assessee had filed a return for the subsequent asst. year before the ITO, Circle-IV-N (2) while the return for AY 1981-82 was filed before the ITO, Survey Circle-Ward-H. During the course of the assessment proceedings for AY 1982-83 the ITO was informed by the assessee th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... there would have been two assessment orders. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Smt. Sohani Devi Jain v. ITO [1977] 109 ITR 130 (Gauhati) (FB) to support his contention that the second order could be passed and was valid. 5. The learned DR rejoined by first of all distinguishing the aforesaid decision in the case of Smt. Sohani Devi Jain on the ground that that was a case of fraud. He submitted that the assessee should not have filed a duplicate return. 6. So far as the jurisdiction of the ITO is concerned we do not think that there was anything wrong with the ITO Circle-IV-N(2) exercising it. That is a merely administrative arrangement. The Act empowers the ITO to pass the assessment order and there....