The court held that an assessment officer cannot re-initiate proceedings after a case has been concluded, as it renders the officer functus officio.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.

2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the Assessment order dated 15th June, 2021 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in case of the petitioner for the assessment years 2018-19 on the ground that the regular assessment proceeding in the case of the petitioner had already stood concluded vide assessment order dated 26th November, 2019 and the respondent Assessing Officer had become functus officio.

3. The learned Predecessor Division Bench while issuing notice on 07th July, 2021 had stayed the operation of the impugned Assessment Order dated 15th June, 2021. The order dated 07th July 2021 is reproduced hereinbelow:

"W.P.(C) 6155/2021 & CM No.19527/2021

[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking stay on the operation of the impugned assessment order dated 15.06.2021 and consequential actions]

2. Via this writ petition, inter alia, challenge is laid to the assessment order dated 15.06.2021 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short `the Act'), concerning the assessment year (AY) 2018-2019.

2.1. Mr. Salil Kapoor, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that the aforementioned assessment order dated 15.06.2021 was passed by the concerned Assessing Officer (in short `AO') when he had already been rendered functus officio. In this context, our attention has been drawn to the earlier assessment order dated 26.11.2019 concerning the very same AY i.e. 2018-2019. This order was also passed under Section 143(3) of the Act by the very same officer.

2.2. According to Mr. Kapoor, after the earlier assessment order was passed, i.e. the order dated 26.11.2019, impugned notices under Section 142(1) of the Act, dated 08.02.2021, 12.02.2021 and 06.03.2021 were served on the petitioner by respondent no.1, which, according to him, was an action without jurisdiction. Mr. Kapoor says that, objections qua the same were raised by the petitioner via communications dated 09.02.2021, 15.02.2021 and 18.03.2021.

2.3. It is also emphasized by Mr. Kapoor that, a bare perusal of the assessment order dated 26.11.2019 would show that it was not passed either under Section 153A or 153C of the Act.

3. Accordingly, issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Abhishek Maratha accepts service on behalf of the respondents/revenue.

3.1. Mr. Maratha says that he will revert with instructions. In case, instructions are received to resist the writ petition, a counter-affidavit will be filed before the next date of hearing.

4. List the matter on 13.08.2021.

5. In the meanwhile, there shall be a stay on the operation of the impugned assessment order dated 15.06.2021."

4. Mr.Maratha, learned counsel, on instructions, states that he does not wish to file any counter affidavit. However, he has drawn this Court's attention to the first assessment order dated 26th November, 2019, wherein it has been held as under:

"12. Assessment year 2018-19 is therefore the search year and the case is required to be assessed along with assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 for which proceedings u/s 153C were separately initiated.

13. In view of facts stated above, it is clear that the assessee did not submit any details in response to notices issued. Therefore, I have no option but to complete the assessment on the basis of material available on record.

14. As discussed above, it is evident that Sh. Verma was actually doing all these entry providing activities and also enjoying the commission earned out of it. Creation of various entities was solely with a view to facilitate him in carrying out his