GURDAYAL SINGH,KARNAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4, KARNAL

Cases called twice. None appeared at the assessee’s behest. I accordingly proceeded ex parte against the appellant.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing with able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned CIT(A) has affirmed assessing officer’s action making section 69A unexplained money addition of Rs.33,53,511/- in the course of assessment framed on 20.12.2019, without either framing points of determination or any detailed adjudication thereupon, as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act.

Faced with this situation, Mr. Bansal vehemently argues that the assessee had indeed been afforded adequate opportunities in both the lower proceedings. He could hardly rebut that foregoing failure of compliance to the above statutory provision is de hors assessee’s cooperation in lower appellate proceedings. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the learned CIT(A) for his fresh adjudication in compliance of section 250(6) with the rider that the taxpayer shall submit and prove all the relevant facts at his risk and responsibility; within three effective opportunities, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.