TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not have been passed and if passed, the same is non est. The two orders cannot exist at the same time. In this connection, I find merit in the appellant's plea [based on judgment of Hon'ble jurisdiction High Court in the case of Classic Share & Stock Braking Services Ltd. (2013 (3) TMI 516 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) that after having passed order dated' 16.09.2013 giving effect to the order of Hon'ble ITAT, the impugned assessment order dated 18.02.2014 passed by the AO is totally illegal, void and without jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, there is no hesitation in holding that the impugned order passed by the AO is bad in law and void ab initio and the same is, therefore, annulled - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 3718/Mum/2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... processed u/s.143(l) of the Act. A search and seizure action was conducted on 24.04.2008 at the premises of business entities wherein Kanakia Family had substantial interest. Pursuant to the search action; notice u/s.153A was issued to the appellant requiring her to file a return of income. The appellant filed her return of income on18.11.2010 declaring the same income of ₹ 78,900/- as returned earlier. Assessment order u/s.144 r.w.s.153A of the Act was passed by the AO. On 30.12.2010 determining the total income of the appellant at ₹ 14,19,800/-. The assessee had shown opening capital balance of ₹ 13,39,776/- and the AO added the above said opening capital balance as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act, besides mak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng passed order on 16.09.2013 to give effect to the order passed by the Hon'ble ITAT, the second assessment order dated 18.02.2014 passed by the AO is completely without jurisdiction. It was also submitted that, by passing assessment order u/s.143(3) Lw.s.254 of the Act for the second time on 18.02.2014, the AO has carried out substantial review of the earlier order passed on 16.09.2013 and the same is not permissible. It was further argued that, if the AO was required to make any amendment to the order already passed by him, he should necessarily assume jurisdiction under appropriate provisions of the Act, such as u/s.154 of the Act if any mistake was apparent on record; u/s.147 of the Act if any income has escaped assessment. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two subsisting assessment orders in case of the appellant for the A.Y. under consideration. It is well-settled that there cannot be two assessments in respect of total income of an assessee in one and the same A.Y. The assessee cannot be assessed twice over for the same A.Y. by framing two assessments, because there cannot be double taxation of the same income. During the existence of first order dated 16.09.2013, the second order dated 18.02.2014 could not have been passed and if passed, the same is non est. The two orders cannot exist at the same time. In this connection, I find merit in the appellant's plea [based on judgment of Hon'ble jurisdiction High Court in the case of Classic Share Stock Braking Services Ltd. (supra)] t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
