ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), ROOM NO. PRATAKSHYA KAR BHAWAN, VANIVIHAR, BHUBANESWAR vs. SAMALESWARI EDUCATION TRUST, SILICON HILLS

Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld CIT Sanjay Kumar, Ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. DR appeared for the revenue. None represented on behalf of the assessee. represented on behalf of the assessee.

It was submitted by ld CIT DR that in the course of original It was submitted by ld CIT DR that in the course of original It was submitted by ld CIT DR that in the course of original assessment, the assessee had not represented its case before the Assessing assessment, the assessee had not represented its case before the Assessing assessment, the assessee had not represented its case before the Assessing

P a g e 1 | 4 officer, which has resulted in an exparte assessment order passed. The assessee had filed appeal before the ld CIT(A), NFAC and before the ld CIT (A), substantial evidences seems to have been filed. The assessee had invoked the provisions of Rule 46A in regard to the evidences filed before the ld CIT(A) and it submitted that the ld AR of the assessee had expired during the period when the assessment was done. Ld CIT(A) had admitted the additional evidences by considering the reasons given as genuine and had sent the details to the Assessing Officer for a remand report. The remand report was to be submitted by 13.8.2022. The remand report was called for by a remand order dated 13.7.2022. It was the submission that barely one month’s time had been granted to the Assessing Officer. Subsequently on the ground that no remand report had been received by the ld CIT(A), he passed the order on 30.1.2024 accepting all the contentions of the assessee without examining any of the evidences submitted. It was the submission that the powers of the ld CIT(A) are co- terminus with that of the Assessing officer and natural justice actually required the ld CIT(A) to examine these evidences. It was the submission that even if the Assessing Officer has submitted the remand report, still the ld CIT(A) was duty bound to examine the evidences and in the absence of the remand report, the burden on the ld CIT(A) was far more. It is not appropriate on the part of the ld CIT(A) to shirk the responsibility on his shoulder by simply saying that the Assessing Officer has not responded to P a g e 2 | 4 the remand order. It was the submission that the order of the ld CIT(A) is liable to be set aside. It was fairly agreed by ld CIT DR that natural justice would be fully served if the issues are restored to the file of the Assessing officer so that the assessee can produce all the evidences now before the AO also as he has already submitted the same before the ld CIT(A).

We have considered the submissions of ld CIT DR. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) in para 4.7 and para 4.8 shows that the ld CIT(A) has got prejudiced on account of the non-submission of the remand report by the Assessing officer. Though clearly adequate opportunity should be granted to both the sides by quashi judicial authority, the fact that the remand report was called for by giving only one months’ time on 13.7.2020 being the date of the remand order and 13.8.2020 being the date submission of the remand report, we believe that the time provided is not adequate. In any case, it is much after the date 13.8.2020 being 30.1.2024, ld CIT(A) has passed the order. It was very much open to the ld CIT(A) to give extended time to the AO to submit the remand report. This has also not been done. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) shows that he has not discussed the nature of the evidences submitted by the assessee. This being so, in the interest of natural justice and so as to grant both the sides adequate opportunity to substantiate the facts, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate his case.

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.