9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ITO, Survey Circle-Ward-H was to be cancelled as an assessment order under section 143(3) for the same asst. year had been passed by the ITO, Circle-IV, Wd-N (2) on 31-3-1984. 2. It can be seen that there are two assessment orders for the same asst. year and earlier one has been passed under section 144 by another ITO. The assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) over t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicate return for AY 1981-82 and the assessment was completed thereon under section 143(3) vide order dated 31-3-1984. The assessee's counsel has filed a xerox copy of the receipt for filing the return for AY 1981-82 which shows that it was filed before the ITO, Circle-IV(N)(2) on 29-9-81. However, the fact remains that the first assessment order was passed by the ITO, Survey Circle, Ward-H on 3- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed that he had the jurisdiction. According to him the cancellation of the second assessment order was justified because otherwise 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 lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id. When the second order was passed the first order was in existence and the second order could not have been passed without setting aside the first order. During the existence of the first order the second order cannot be passed and if passed, it is non est. The learned counsel has submitted that the two orders cannot exist at the same time and that therefore the first order is invalid. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact. If that be so, it was an invalid order". (Page 140 of the report.) Therefore it was the first order which was found to be "suspicious and collusive". The High Court has held it to be invalid. Since the first order was invalid the second could be passed. Therefore in this case the second order was invalid. The AAC was wrong in setting aside the first order. The second order as stated above, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
