SHRI SEENIVASAN,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

The ld. Counsel further stated that later on, theLearned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (in short “Ld PCIT”), has exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the same assessment year 2017-18 and on the same issues, which the ITAT Rajkot, vide for assessment year 2017-18, vide order of Tribunal dated 30.08.2024,has given the direction to the assessing officer to pass the fresh assessment order, considering all the issues. The ldCounsel stated that assessing officer cannot frame two assessment order, Viz: (i) one, as directed by the Tribunal in ITA No. 51/Rjt/2024, for assessment year 2017-18, and (ii) second, as directed by the ld. PCIT, vide his order dated 07.03.2022, for assessment year 2017-18, on the same issues. Therefore, order of the ld. PCIT may quashed. 4.On the other hand, Ld. CIT(DR) for the revenue has submitted that the appeal effect order of the Ld. PCIT, (vide order of PCIT dated 07.03.2022) passed u/s. 263 of the Act, has already been given by the Assessing Officer on 27.03.2023. Further, the assessee did not inform the Bench about passing such order. Therefore, an affidavit should be obtained from the assessee to the effect that no order giving appeal effect has been passed by the Assessing Officer, in respect of Tribunal order in ITA No. 51/Rjt/2024, for assessment year 2017-18, this is necessary to avoid the duplication. The Ld. CIT(DR) did not have any Seenivasan Gandhidham v. PCIT objection to quash the order of ld. PCIT, however, he wants to make sure that while giving appeal effect order of the Tribunal`s order in all the issues raised by the ld. PCIT may be taken care of by the assessing officer. 5.We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. We note that there should not be two assessment orders for the same issues and for the same assessment year, on one person.We note that the Tribunal in ITA No. 51/Rjt/2024, vide its order dated 30.08.2024,hasremitted the issue back to the file of the assessing officer, to frame a fresh assessment order, considering all the issues. The relevant Para of the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 51/Rjt/2024 is reproduced below, for ready reference: “We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee did not submit details and documents before the Ld. CIT(A), as no notices were served on the assessee therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order. We note that assessee could not plead his case successfully before the Ld. CIT(A) as notices for hearing were not served on the assessee. We also note that Ld. CIT(A) has not passed the order as per the mandate of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act as the order was passed by Ld.CIT(A) without hearing the assessee. That is, Ld. CIT(A) did not pass order on merit based on the material available on record. Hence, we are of the view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to plead his case before the Assessing Officer. We note that it is settled law that principles of natural justice and fair play require that the affected party is granted sufficient opportunity of being heard to contest his case. Therefore, without delving much deeper into the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication and pass a speaking order after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, who in turn, is also directed to contest his stand forthwith. Therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.