1990 (3) TMI 92 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment orders passed by different ITOs for the same assessment year.
2. Jurisdiction of the ITO to pass the subsequent assessment order.
3. Interpretation of the law regarding the validity of multiple assessment orders.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved two assessment orders for the same assessment year, with the first order passed under section 144 by one ITO and the second under section 143(3) by another ITO. The appellant challenged the AAC's decision that the first assessment order was invalid due to a subsequent regular assessment. The appellant had appealed on grounds of invalidity and merits of the first order before the Commissioner (Appeals). The AAC did not decide on merits but held the first order invalid due to the subsequent assessment. The appellant's counsel argued that the case was transferred between ITOs, leading to the second assessment order. The Tribunal found the second order invalid as it was passed while the first order was in existence, making the second order non est. The matter was remanded to the AAC to decide on the grounds of appeal.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the ITO who passed the subsequent assessment order had jurisdiction, as the appellant filed a duplicate return upon the ITO's request without knowledge of the first assessment. The counsel contended that the second order was valid, citing the Hon'ble High Court's decision in a similar case. The Tribunal agreed that the ITO's jurisdiction was valid and that administrative arrangements did not affect the assessment order's validity. However, the Tribunal found the second order invalid as it was passed while the first order was in effect, rendering it non est.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the interpretation of law regarding the validity of multiple assessment orders. It emphasized that the passing of the second order led to the situation of two assessment orders, making the second order invalid as it was passed while the first order was in existence. The Tribunal distinguished a previous decision where the first order was found collusive and invalid, allowing for the validity of a subsequent order. In this case, the Tribunal held that the first order should not have been set aside, and the second order was invalid. The matter was remanded to the AAC for further consideration based on the grounds of appeal.