PAWAN KUMAR Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the assessment year 1993-94, the petitioner filed his return of income before the Income-tax Officer, Ward No. 2, Bhatinda, declaring an income of Rs. 37,565. The Income-tax Officer, vide his order dated March 14, 1997, annexure P-1, made an assessment of the petitioner on a total income of Rs. 10,78,310 against the returned income of Rs. 37,565, raising an additional demand of Rs. 8,97,907. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order of the Income-tax Officer before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bhatinda.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application under Section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), not to declare him as an assessee in default during the pendency of the appeal. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order dated June 17, 1997, annexure P-5, by passing the following order :

(3.) WE find substance in the submission raised by counsel for the petitioner. In Kuku Rice Mills' case [1992] 196 ITR 326 (P & H) and Aggarwal Rice and General Mills' case [1993] 204 ITR 480 (P & H), it has been held that the Income-tax Officer is required to afford an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a speaking order while deciding the application filed by the assessee under Section 220(6) of the Act.