MASS EDUCATION,KOLKATA vs. ADDITIONAL DIT, EXEMPTION - II, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

We come to assessee’s pleadings first. It raises two substantive grounds in former assessment year 2007-08 a ITA No.398/Kol/2018. Its first plea is that the CIT(A)’s order has dismissing its lower appeal without any detailed adjudication and A.Ys 07-08 & 09-10 Mass Education Vs Addl. DCIT (Ex)-II, Kol. Page 2 in violation of principle of natural justice. It then seeks to delete surplus income addition of ₹68,42,433/- on merits. Coming to latter assessment year 2009-10 involving CIT(A) had not afforded it adequate opportunity of hearing during lower appellate proceedings. It then challenges various addition(s) amounting to ₹1,04,19,114/- , ₹1,67,815/-, ₹67,30,947/-, ₹30,58,295/-, ₹28,28,477/- and ₹21,67,727/-; respectively under various heads of garbage lifting maintenance charges, surplus profit and rental income etc. on merits.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. It emerges first of all from a combined perusal of these two cases that the CIT(A)’s order under challenge duly recognizes the fact of the assessee having filed written arguments / submissions during the course of lower appellate proceedings. The CIT(A)’s order under challenge in para 2 sent the said written submissions to the Assessing Officer for his comments. The lower appellate order thereafter has gone silent as to in what manner the Assessing Officer submitted his remand report. All these facts have gone unrebutted from Revenue side before us. There is no adjudication contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act requiring points of adjudication followed by detailed discussion in the CIT(A)’s order. We therefore find merit in assessee’s former identical technical ground (supra) that the lower appellate order forming part of subject-matter of these appeals in these two cases is not liable to be sustained.

Next equally important key question is that Assessing Officer had also passed his assessment order(s) ex parte in best judgment assessments. He assessed assessee’s receipts (supra) to be income of the two impugned assessment years. We are informed during the course of hearing that the Assessing Officer had passed similar orders in assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 as well in sec. 144 assessments. The assessee filed u/s 264 revision petitions before CIT who restored the issues back to the Assessing Officer on 10.12.2015 and 22.09.2016 respectively. The said revision orders form part of record before us. The Assessing Officer also appears to have A.Ys 07-08 & 09-10 Mass Education Vs Addl. DCIT (Ex)-II, Kol. Page 3 framed consequential assessments in compliance thereof. We therefore restore all issues raised in these two assessee’s appeal(s) back to the Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication on merits after affording adequate opportunity of hearing. It is made clear that the assessee shall be liberty to file all detailed evidence in consequential proceedings.