PANKAJ SHARMA,PANIPAT vs. ITO WARD-3, PANIPAT

Since the issue in all the appeals are common, therefore we clubbed all of them together for the sake of brevity and convenience. However, we are taking 1. “That the order of the Ld CIT(A) is bad in law and against the principle of natural justice 2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO order passed without jurisdiction.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in passing the ex-parte order without deciding the merits of the case. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,25,12,542/- made by the AO u/s 68 on account of unexplained cash credit. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal.”

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before us, it is the contention of the Learned AR that the notices issued by the CIT(A) were not served on the assessee and therefore assessee could not comply with the directions. The perusal of CIT(A) orders reveals that CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order without deciding the issue on merits. Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of I. T. Act mandate the CIT(A) to state the points in dispute and thereafter assign the reasons in support of his conclusion. We are of the view that by dismissing the appeals without considering the issue on merits, Learned CIT(A) has failed to follow the mandate required in Sub Section (6) of Section 250 of the Act. Further it is also a well settled principle of natural justice that sufficient opportunity of hearing should be offered to the parties and no parties should be condemned unheard. In view of these facts, we set aside the impugned orders of CIT(A) and restore the issue to the file of CIT(A) for re- adjudication of the issues after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to furnish the details called for by the lower authorities. In view of our decision to restore the issue to CIT(A), we are not adjudicating on merits the grounds raised by the assessee. Thus the ground of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.