THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCLE-1, , KAKINADA vs. G. NARAYANA RAO,, KAKINADA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 593/VIZ/2018 (Asst. Year : 2009-10) The ACIT, Circle-1, vs. Grandhi Narayana Rao, Kakinada. Prop. : Sri Dhana Lakshmi Oil & General Merchants, D.No.27-9-14/1, Pulavarthy Street, Kakinada. PAN No. ABQPG 1242 D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 19/VIZ/2019 (Arising out of ITA No. 593/VIZ/2018) (Asst. Year : 2009-10) Grandhi Narayana Rao, vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Prop. : Sri Dhana Lakshmi Oil Kakinada. & General Merchants, D.No. 27-9-14/1, Pulavarthy Street, Kakinada. PAN No. ABQPG 1242 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri G.V.N. Hari – Advocate. Department By : Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR Date of hearing : 29/07/2019. Date of pronouncement : 07/08/2019. O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This appeal by the Revenue and the Cross Objection by the assessee are directed against the order of Commissioner of

2 ITA No.593/VIZ/2018 C.O.No.19/VIZ/2019 (G. Narayana Rao) Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam, dated 29/06/2018 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. When this appeal is taken up for hearing, ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Department has to file two separate appeals against two separate assessment orders, but filed a single appeal, which is not maintainable. 3. We find that there is a delay of 16 days in filing the appeal. The Revenue has filed the condonation application for 11 days. This defect was brought to the notice of the ld.DR on 31/01/2019, who sought time to rectify the Form No.36. One more defect is noticed in this appeal is that the Assessing Officer has passed the order u/sec. 143(3) on 30/12/2010 and also passed order u/sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 18/06/2014, by which, the Revenue has preferred this appeal against both the orders. So far as order u/sec. 143(3) passed by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing that the approach of the Assessing Officer is not justified. So far as order u/sec.143(3) r.w.s. 147 is concerned, it is only mere change of opinion and by following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator India Ltd. [(320 ITR 561 (SC)] has held that notice is invalid and the reassessment proceedings are void ab initio. These two separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing