THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, UDUPI vs. M/S UDUPI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, BANNANJE

At the very outset, the parties herein conceded that the facts and circumstances and the issues involved in all these appeals are absolutely identical and similar and, therefore, all these appeals were heard together and were disposed of by this consolidated order.

Ld.DR opening his arguments submitted that for the purpose of , 239, 241 & 242/PAN/2018 M/s. Udupi Urban Development Authority adjudication, A.Y. 2010-11 may be taken as lead case. He further submitted that in all these cases, ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee placing reliance on the notification of Govt. of Karnataka, dated 10/03/2006. Ld.DR further submitted that this notification was not sent to the AO for his comments and the ld.CIT(A) without calling for any remand report, had suo motu given relief, based on this notification. It was further submitted by the ld.DR that the AO must also be given an opportunity to verify the applicability of this notification to the facts of the assessee’s case and, therefore this matter may be remanded back to the file of the AO for adjudication as per law.

Ld.AR, on the other hand, could not demonstrate whether the said notification was sent to the AO for his comments regarding the applicability of the said notification to the facts of the assessee’s case. Ld.AR simply supported the findings of the ld. CIT(A).

We have heard the rival submissions and considered the facts and circumstances in this case. We find that at para 5.16, the ld.CIT(A) had relied on the Government of Karnataka Notification no. UDD 522 MyAaPra 2005, dated 10/03/2006, however, as rightly submitted by the ld.DR, the ld. CIT(A) had not called for any report from the AO regarding the applicability of the said notification to the facts of the assessee’s case and have simply given relief to the assessee based on this notification. The principles of natural justice 2

ITA Nos.238, 239, 241 & 242/PAN/2018 M/s. Udupi Urban Development Authority demands that any government order, notification, circular etc. if it is relied on by the first appellate authority, the concerned Assessing Officer should also be given an opportunity to give his submissions and comments on the applicability of such circular, notifications etc. In this regard before us, it is very clear and precise that the ld. CIT(A) has passed his decision on the aforesaid notification of the Government of Karnataka, but has not allowed the AO to put on record his comments/views on the subject matter. That, even the ld.AR was unable to demonstrate whether his jurisdictional Assessing Officer was referred to on this issue by the ld. CIT(A). We are of the considered view that in the interest of natural justice, ld. CIT(A) should have given an opportunity to the AO to place his comments on the applicability of the said notification. In view thereof, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to the file of the AO for adjudication as per law, verifying the applicability of the said notification of Government of Karnataka vis-a-vis- facts of the assessee’s case and come out with speaking order complying with the principles of natural justice. is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the combined result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.