Held, dismissing the appeal of the Revenue the Court held that firstly, the Assessing Officer had passed two assessment orders under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act on the basis of the very same reassessment notice dated March 31, 2016 issued under section 148 of the Act. Secondly, even in the second assessment order dated August 31, 2017, challenged in the appeal, the income of the assessee was not based on the valuation report of the Departmental Valuation Officer and therefore it was contrary to the provisions of section 142A(7) of the Act, which requires the Assessing Officer to take into account such report while making the assessment or reassessment. Thirdly, the second assessment order dated August 31, 2017 was in respect of a transaction, which was already a subject matter of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore it was contrary to the second proviso to section 147 of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time. There was no provision in the Act, which authorised the Assessing Officer to pass multiple assessment orders on its own without any direction from any higher administrative or appellate authority. Further, Explanation 1(iv) to section 153 specifically provides that the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the Valuation Officer under section 142A(1) of the Act and ending with the date on which the report of the Valuation Officer is received by the Assessing Officer is excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation period under section 153 of the Act. Therefore, passing the assessment order on the pretext that the assessment was getting time-barred, without waiting for the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer, showed a completely incorrect understanding of the provisions of the Act. The assessee in its appeal against the first assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act, had challenged the taxability of the receipts from the transfer of the development rights and the reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer to determine the actual sale consideration of properties. Therefore, the second assessment order dated August 31, 2017 passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act was clearly in contravention of the provisions of the proviso to section 147 of the Act, since it reassessed the income which was the subject matter of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the conclusion reached by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the second assessment order dated August 31, 2017, passed under section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act was null and void ab initio being contrary to provisions of the Act was proper and to be affirmed.(AY. 2009-10)