Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur
Mahendra Singh Narendra Singh vs Income Tax Officer on 28 March, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2003)80TTJ(JODH)207
ORDER
1. This appeal by the assessee for the asst. yr. 1988-89 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A), dt. 18th March, 1994.
2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the material on records including the written statement of learned authorised representative of the assessee submitted before us.
3. The assessee-appellant has raised as many as 5 grounds of appeals but they all constitute single issue disputing the learned CIT(A)'s impugned order confirming the fresh assessment made by the AO on 18th March, 1993, in pursuance of learned CIT(A)'s first setting aside order, dt. 5th Sept., 1990. The learned authorised representative of the assessee has contended that the learned CIT(A) had vide his first appellate order, dt. 5th Sept., 1990, set aside the assessment and against the said first setting aside order of CIT(A), both the sides went in appeal before the Tribunal. He has contended that the Tribunal, had vide its appellate order, dt. 7th March, 1995, (paper book pp. 21-26), set aside the learned CIT(A)'s first setting order, dt. 5th Sept., 1990, and he directed the learned CIT(A) to decide the appeal before him on merits. He has contended that in view of the Tribunal's above-mentioned order, dt. 7th March, 1995, the learned CIT(A) original setting aside order, dt, 5th March, 1990, does not stand and so fresh assessment made by the AO in compliance of the same too does not stand. He has contended that in the above situation, the fresh assessment, dt. 18th March, 1993, framed by the AO has also the CIT(A)'s impugned order, dt. 18th March, 1994, do not stand in law: and the same needs to be annulled. As against this, the learned senior Departmental Representative of Revenue supports the order of the authorities below.
4. We have considered the rival contentions and also relevant material on records. In our considered opinion, when the learned CIT(A)'s first setting aside order, dt. 5th Sept., 1990, was already set aside by the Tribunal vide their appellate order, dt. 7th March, 1995, the AO had no jurisdiction to frame fresh assessment, dt. 18th March, 1993, in compliance of the learned CIT(A)'s first setting aside order which no more stood in law. In that view of the matter, the fresh assessment, dt. 18th March, 1993, framed by the AO together with the learned CIT(A)'s order, dt. 18th March, 1994, confiring the above-mentioned first fresh assessment do not stand in law; so we annul these two impugned orders of the authorities below.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above.