PER G.D. AGRAWAL, PER G.D. AGRAWAL, PER G.D. AGRAWAL, PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE VICE VICE VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT : : : :- - - - This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi dated 2 nd July, 2015.

2. Brief facts of the case are that search and seizure operation at the assessee’s premises took place on 29 th April, 2008 and, in pursuance to such search, assessment u/s 153A for the year under consideration was completed on 29 th December, 2010 at the income of `19,86,22,400/-. That subsequently, another search took place on 19 th June, 2009 and again, proceedings u/s 153A were initiated and a fresh assessment was completed u/s 153A/143(3) on 29 th December, 2011 at the income of `19,86,22,400/-. The assessee had filed appeal before the learned CIT(A) against both the orders and in the appeal against ITA-27/Del/2016 2 the order dated 29 th December, 2010, learned CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal holding it to be infructuous on the ground that the assessment for the year under consideration has been framed u/s 153A/143(3) on 29 th December, 2011 and against such assessment order, appeal has already been decided by the learned CIT(A) on 7 th November, 2013.

3. At the time of hearing before us, both the parties agreed that two assessments for the same assessment year cannot survive and therefore, the subsequent assessment i.e. assessment order dated 29 th December, 2011 would survive in which the same income has been assessed which is assessed by assessment order dated 29 th December, 2010 and therefore, learned CIT(A), in the impugned order, instead of holding the appeal to be infructuous, should have declared the assessment order dated 29 th December, 2010 to be infructuous. We entirely agree with the submission of both the sides that for the same assessment year, there cannot be two assessments and, in this case, there are two assessment orders, one dated 29 th December, 2010 and another dated 29 th December, 2011, both determining the income at `19,86,22,400/-. We hold that the subsequent assessment order dated 29 th December, 2011 as modified by the appellate authorities would survive and the assessment order dated 29 th December, 2010 has become infructuous and nullity. With this observation, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.

4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 05.02.2019. Sd/- Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA (AMIT SHUKLA (AMIT SHUKLA (AMIT SHUKLA) ) ) ) ( ( ( (G.D. AGRAWAL G.D. AGRAWAL G.D. AGRAWAL G.D. AGRAWAL) ) ) ) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE VICE VICE VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT VK. ITA-27/Del/2016 3 Copy forwarded to: -

1. Appellant : Shri Kamal Kishore Chaurasia, Shri Kamal Kishore Chaurasia, Shri Kamal Kishore Chaurasia, Shri Kamal Kishore Chaurasia, 575, 1 575, 1 575, 1 575, 1 st st st st Floor, Double Storey Flat, Floor, Double Storey Flat, Floor, Double Storey Flat, Floor, Double Storey Flat, New Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi New Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi New Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi New Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi – – – – 110 060. 110 060. 110 060. 110 060.

2. Respondent : Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Central Circle Central Circle Central Circle- - - -8, New Delhi. 8, New Delhi. 8, New Delhi. 8, New Delhi.

3. CIT

4. CIT(A)

5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar