JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. In this revisional application as filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the order dated June 13, 2018 as passed by Learned Second Bench, Municipal Assessment Tribunal, Kolkata Municipal Corporation in M.A. Appeal No. 268 of 2015 has been assailed. By the impugned judgment, learned Tribunal while allowing the said appeal has been pleased to modify the assessment order dated 13.01.2015 as passed by the hearing officer of the Kolkata municipal Corporation in respect of flat No. 407, 4th floor of premises No. 6/5D, Anil Mitra Road, Kolkata-700053. The Kolkata Municipal Corporation hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’ (in short) felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant revisional application.

2. In support of instant revisional application, learned advocate for the Revisionist/ Corporation at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the Annexure-A being the copy of the inspection book of the aforementioned premises. It is submitted that after construction of the said premises which is a new G +4 building, annual valuation was fixed to the tune of Rs. 27,47,300/- with effect from third quarter of 2006-2007 and challenging the said valuation the owners/persons liable in respect of the said newly constructed premises have not preferred any appeal and thus the said said valuation reached its finality. It is further submitted that similarly for the second quarter of 2007-2008, annual valuation of the said premises was assessed to the tune of Rs. 28,84670/- by increasing 5% of the annual valuation with effect from third quarter of 2006-2007 and challenging the said valuation also the owners/persons liable have not preferred any appeal and thus the said valuation also reached its finality.

3. It is thus argued that while passing the impugned judgment, the Learned tribunal ought to have considered the aforesaid facts as available from the I.B. Book in respect of the said premises and thus must not disturb the rate of assessment as made by the Hearing officer on 13.01.2015.

4. It is further argued on behalf of the Revisionist/Corporation that there is no justification on the part of the Learned Tribunal to place on reliance on the judgment of M.A.A. 1032 of 2008 in the impugned judgment since the premises involved in the present appeal and the premises involved in M.A.A. 1032 of 2008 do not stand on the same footings on account of their different age of construction.

5. It is also argued that while passing the impugned judgment, the Learned Tribunal failed to consider the true spirit and mode of assessment of the determination of annual valuation as envisaged in Section 174 of the KMC Act, 1980, hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’. It is thus contended that the assessment as made by the Learned Tribunal is exceptionally low and the same may be set aside by allowing the instant revisional application.

6. Per contra, Learned Advocate for the Opposite Party/owner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the order dated 13.01.2015 as passed by the hearing officer of the Kolkata municipal Corporation in respect of flat No. 407, 4th floor of premises No. 6/5D, Anil Mitra Road, Kolkata-700053. It is contended that since the hearing officer in his said order dated 13.01.2015 has assigned no reason as to how, he has arrived to the calculation of Annual Valuation of the said flat, Learned Tribunal is very much justified in passing the judgment which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal. Drawing attention to the impugned judgment, it is contended on behalf o