KARSHAK VIDYA PARISHAD,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

It transpires during the course of hearing of both stay applications and the main cases that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance raised herein challenges correctness of the lower authorities’ action; mainly that of the Assessing Officer, in disallowing entire expenditure of Rs.13,04,46,012/- in AY.2012-13’s followed by identical grounds raised in the remaining six cases as well. There is further no dispute that the assessee had filed its lower appeal before the CIT(A) on 31-01-2020 followed by his hearing notice issued on 29-02-2021 (e-mail) finally culminating in ex-parte rejection order(s) under challenge dt.04-03-2021. It is clear in this factual backdrop that the CIT(A) had conducted his lower appeal hearings mainly during the COVID-19 out-break lock down period(s) only wherein lack of communication between

Coupled with this emerges the clinching fact that all these impugned assessments have been framed u/s.153A of the Act in furtherance to the department’s search action dt.23- 03-2018. The PCIT(Central), Hyderabad had thereafter passed his order dt.26-12-2019 withdrawing the assessee’s approval granted u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the Act. And that the Assessing Officer next framed his assessments by treating the assessee as having lost in the foregoing registration issue as an educational institution whilst making the impugned disallowance/addition forming subject matter of adjudication in all these seven appeals. Faced with this situation that the learned lower authorities; and particularly, the Assessing Officer has treated the assessee as an institution no more enjoying Section 10(23C)(vi) exemption and the CIT(A)’s orders have been passed ex-parte during COVID-19 out-break as well as keeping in mind the fact that the tribunal’s co-ordinate bench has accepted the taxpayer’s appeal preferred against the PCIT’s foregoing registration cancellation order thereby granting necessary consequential relief, we deem it appropriate to set aside all the assessee’s grounds raising the sole issue (supra) in the “lead” appeal ITA No.276/Hyd/2020 as well as six other appeals back to the Assessing Officer for his de novo adjudication as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

We make it clear that Mr.Murali Mohana Rao has quoted case law, CIT Vs. Sengunthar Metriculation Higher Secondary School 129 taxmann.com 3 (SC) holding that as long as an assessee adheres to parameters required to be satisfied for Section 10(23C) exemption, the same ought not to be denied in the course of appropriate proceedings. We find no merit in the assessee’s arguments at this stage since their lordships dealt with a case u/s.10(23C)(vi) registration than that of disallowance of expenditure or addition of the entire income; per se. We make it clear that it shall be very much open for the assessee to raise all factual and legal objections; if so advised, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. No other substantive ground has been pressed before us.

These assessee’s instant seven appeals to 282/Hyd/2021 are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms and the corresponding stay applications S.A.Nos.26 to 32/Hyd/2021 stand dismissed as rendered infructuous. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.