2021 (11) TMI 919 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition u/s 68 - Validity of two separate assessment orders by two different A.Os. for the same assessee for the same assessment year - HELD THAT - It is a peculiar case of reopening of the assessment on account of cash deposit in the bank account by two different Assessing Officers for the same assessee for the same assessment year Once the A.O. has already made an assessment in the order under section 147/143(3) in the case of the assessee for the same assessment year for the reason that assessee has made cash deposit of ₹ 15,02,250/- in his bank account, therefore, in my opinion it is not permissible by another A.O. to reopen the assessment on the very same issue and pass the order under section 147/144 of the I.T. Act, 1961. When the PAN was available with the Department and an order had already been passed under section 147/143(3) for the same assessment year for the same reason, therefore, the second order passed by the A.O. dated 07.12.2017 in my opinion does not stand in the eyes of Law unless and until the first order is withdrawn. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the second order passed by the ITO, Ward-32(2) in the instant case does not survive since there cannot be two different assessment orders for the same assessee for the same assessment year with the same PAN by two different A.Os. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment order passed by A.O.
2. Jurisdiction of A.O. ward 32(2) over the matter.
3. Service of notice u/s 148 by AO ward 32(2).
4. Adjudication of additional grounds of appeal.
5. Treatment of loan as unexplained cash credit.
6. Addition of sum in assessable income on purchase of car.
7. Consideration of loan confirmation.
8. Validity of assessment order passed by AO ward 32(2).
9. Enhancement of assessable income.
10. Two assessments of appellant for the same year.

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenged the Order dated 15.01.2019 of the Ld. CIT(A)-11, New Delhi, regarding the A.Y. 2010-2011. The Assessee contended that the assessment order passed by the A.O. was invalid, questioning the jurisdiction of A.O. ward 32(2) over the matter, and disputing the service of notice u/s 148 by the same. Additionally, the Assessee raised concerns about the non-adjudication of additional grounds of appeal and the treatment of a loan as unexplained cash credit.

2. The facts revealed that the Assessee had deposited cash in the bank account and purchased a car during the relevant financial year. The A.O. initiated reassessment proceedings due to non-disclosure of the source of funds for the car purchase and cash deposits. The Assessee argued that the cash deposit was from the sale of agricultural land and the car purchase was funded by a loan from Mrs. Bhagwati Devi. However, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the A.O.'s decision, leading to the Assessee's appeal before the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal noted the peculiar situation of two different Assessing Officers reopening the assessment for the same Assessee for the same assessment year. The A.O. had already completed an assessment accepting the returned income, making it impermissible for another A.O. to reopen the assessment on the same issue. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the second assessment order by A.O. ward 32(2) was not valid, as there cannot be two different assessment orders for the same assessee for the same assessment year.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, emphasizing that the second assessment order did not stand in the eyes of the law. The decision highlighted the principle that there cannot be two different assessment orders for the same assessee for the same assessment year by two different A.Os. The Tribunal's ruling favored the Assessee based on the legal principles and the facts of the case, ultimately setting aside the second assessment order.

← Previous Next →