SHRI ONKAR MAL,SIKAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, SIKAR

In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved for reopening of assessment as well as addition of Rs. 5,22,560/- made U/s 69 of the Act.

2 ITA 1262/JP/2018_ Shri Onkar Mal Vs. ITO 3. At the outset, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has passed ex parte order without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. He contended that no notice was served at the address given by the assessee in Form No. 35 filed before the ld. CIT(A). An affidavit to this effect was also placed on record.

We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. From perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A), it is clear that he has not decided the issue on merit and had just upheld the order of the A.O. on the plea that the appellate authority cannot substitute its own judgment in place of the judgment of the A.O. unless it is shown that the judgment of the A.O. was biased, irrational, vindictive or capricious . As per provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act, the ld. CIT(A) has to pass order in writing giving reasons for his conclusion. However, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) are not in terms of provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the substantial interest of justice, we set aside the ex parte order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh after providing reasonable and effective hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. We order accordingly.